Talk:British Empire/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Error made on the size of the empire

could you please read the following articals and then add the ones bellow (all infomation is taken from wikipedia)

iceland "The invasion of Iceland, codenamed Operation Fork, was a British military operation conducted by the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines during World War II. The invasion began in the early morning of 10 May 1940 with British troops disembarking in Reykjavík, capital of neutral Iceland. Meeting no resistance, the troops moved quickly to disable communication networks, secure strategic locations and arrest German citizens. Requisitioning local means of transportation, the troops moved to Hvalfjörður, Kaldaðarnes, Sandskeiði and Akranes to secure landing areas against the possibility of a German counterattack. In the following days air defence equipment was deployed in Reykjavík and a detachment of troops was sent to Akureyri."

washington and part of lybia I cant find a current example but i know for a fact that it was a part of the empire. if you need more proof http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Empire_Anachronous_4a.PNG please note there are many others missing as well

tibet "The British expedition to Tibet in 1903 and 1904 was an invasion of Tibet by British Indian forces, seeking to prevent the Russian Empire from interfering in Tibetan affairs and thus gaining a foothold in one of the buffer states surrounding British India, under reasoning similar to that which had led British forces into Afghanistan twenty years before. Whilst British forces were remarkably successful in achieving their aims militarily, politically the invasion was very unpopular back in Britain, where it was virtually disowned post-war. The effects on Tibet, despite higher casualties and some economic disruption, were also not significant, and any changes were not long retained."

part of nepal "There is historical evidence that, at one time, the boundary of Greater Nepal extended from the Tista River in the east to Kangara, across Sutlej River, in the west. A dispute and subsequent war with Tibet over the control of mountain passes forced the Nepalese to retreat and pay heavy reparations. Rivalry between Nepal and the British East India Company over the annexation of minor states bordering Nepal eventually led to the Anglo-Nepalese War (1815–16). The valor displayed by the Nepalese during the war astounded their enemies and earned them their image of fierce and ruthless "Gurkhas". The war ended in the Treaty of Sugauli, a territorial disaster for the nation, under which Nepal ceded Sikkim and lands in Terai to the Company."

bhutan "In the 18th century, the Bhutanese invaded and occupied the kingdom of Cooch Behar to the south. In 1772, Cooch Behar appealed to the British East India Company which assisted them in ousting the Bhutanese, and later in attacking Bhutan itself in 1774. A peace treaty was signed in which Bhutan agreed to retreat to its pre-1730 borders. However, the peace was tenuous, and border skirmishes with the British were to continue for the next 100 years. The skirmishes eventually led to the Duar War (1864–1865), a confrontation for control of the Bengal Duars. After Bhutan lost the war, the Treaty of Sinchula was signed between British India and Bhutan. As part of the war reparations, the Duars were ceded to the United Kingdom in exchange for a rent of Rs. 50,000. The treaty ended all hostilities between British India and Bhutan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.65.241 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Britain alone in WW II

Technically the contention that Britain and its empire were alone against Nazi Germany after the Fall of France before it got the United States was not correct. For a time, Greece waged an effective war against Fascist Italy and was a a desirable ally of Britain -- until Nazi Germany overwhelmed Greece. Egypt was formally independent and remained largely unoccupied by Axis forces, and was the site of the critical battle of El Alamein. But the expression that Britain fought alone (even if one accepts that it had many Poles, Free French, and others as fighting refugees) was correct only in the short times between the fall of France and the Italian invasion of Greece and the weeks between the fall of Greece and the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. But that is a simplification generally accepted in history.

Beyond doubt the Nazi invasion of the USSR gave Britain a necessary ally. Churchill himself so spoke: "Russia's peril is our peril" -- and British military practice recognized that the Soviet Union would need supplies delivered through the dangerous waters of the North Atlantic. Soviet Russia was a huge ally of the British Empire from June 1941 onward, and the United States became a formal ally only from December 1941.

Makes sense--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That section should certainly mention the USSR although i think Italy / Greece are less of a major factor for such a brief sum up of what happened in world war two. How about it is changed to something like after the fall of France, Britain and the empire were the only major power left at war with Nazi Germany until Hitlers invasion of the USSR which divided Germanys forces and provided Britain with a much needed ally etc BritishWatcher (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Engages in a bit of OR unless we have sources. The division of forces was pretty damn miniscule in barbarossa. Even after D-day at the falaise pocket, the entire German army in france is little over quarter of a million men. There were more local auxiliary Order Police in the east than there were Wehrmacht soldiers in France. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, Narson. Also, let's bear in mind that this is an article about the British Empire, not the military history of Britain during WW2, and it was the United States that always held the key to the future of the Empire. Niall Ferguson writes "In the First World War, American economic and then military support had been important, though not decisive. In the Second World War it was crucial. From the very earliest days Churchill had pinned his hopes on the United States". The United States was also key for Australia and New Zealand. In the Commonwealth of Nations by David McIntyre, "The crisis in the Mediterranean after the fall of France and Italy's entry in the war had caused the British to warn Australia and New Zealand that they should seek help from the United States." Churchill himself later wrote "No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not fortell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! ... We had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live. " The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a common phrase used by many that talk about this period of the war. Generally it means that the UK had no one that could come to her aid (i.e. fight alone). Egypt and Greece had no capability to aid the UK, the UK actually tried to Aid them in order to create new fields of engagement to stretch German resources. There were other countries on the UK's side back then but places like Nepal were not great theaters of battle and could do little to help. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no point in mentioning small nations in such a small explanation of the British Empire in world war 2. However the USSR should at least get a mention rather thsn saying Britain was alone until the Americans arrived. The USSR was one of the 3 major allied powers (British Empire/USA being the other two), it should atleast say the British Empire was alone against Nazi Germany until Hitlers invasion of the USSR. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no argument there. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

God help any student or casual reader trying to use Wikipedia make sense of the period 1914-1945. The World War 2 section needs help, but unfortunately the interwar section which had been rewritten to support changes now flows about as smoothly as an avalanche of boulders; I thought I knew the period pretty well, but I can't follow it. That leads to issues like the point being argued; a good example of why we should avoid disjointed factoids. This one should be removed entirely; it generalises about something complex and requires context to make it valid . One has to define that it means "alone" in the sense of no other global power and explain that Churchill did not show as much excitement about Barbarossa (cf. Pearl Harbour) because the Russian position was precarious and offered little hope to him in 1941. Neither are really relevant. However, going the other way and extracting random excerpts to support an argument that the US was the be-all-and-end-all is equally misleading. Without the Russian contribution the war could not have been won (at least not in the same time frame). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This "generalisation" criticism can be applied to virtually all of the article. It is a summary of 400 years, the article can barely scratch the surface of the events it describes. Pick any sentence, and someone who knows about that event in detail can level the same accusation.

As to "standing alone", I can only point you to:

• [1] "After the fall of France in 1940, the British were left alone to deal with Japan, Italy and Germany."
• David Low's cartoon, caption "Very well, alone!", published on the same day as Churchill's broadcast after the fall of France [2]
• [3] "After the fall of France, Great Britain stood alone in the struggle against Hitler's Germany."
• [4] "Britain alone resisted the Nazi onslaught, led by Winston Churchill."
• [5] "Britain was left to stand alone against [the threats from the 1930s], especially after the fall of France to Hitler's blitzkrieg in 1940."
• [6] "With the fall of France, most textbooks will tell you that Great Britain stood alone against Germany...Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States would enter the war against Germany until 1941. The British, however, were not entirely alone. The Dominions...joined in declarations of war against Germany." ... and a similar point can be found here [7] (note, our article mentions the Empire as well as Britain, so is OK here)

So there is certainly no problem with the "alone" statement per se. The books listed above do not have the constraints of brevity that an encyclopaedia does, yet they do not feel the need to go into the fine print of the "aloneness" of the situation (aside from the two refs pointing out that Britain also had the millions in its Empire, but that's a different point). This is an encyclopaedia, not a legal contract where every base, gap or loophole must be covered! Articles would be very drab affairs if this was the case. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the alteration, the mention of the USSR does now make the paragraph far more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The alteration reveals the lie: A quarter of the population of the world standing "alone" against Germany and Italy? Oh, but it's "verified" so that's okay. Sure. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Its called British pov. They always like to see themselves as the heroes, sure a small island with a population of 460 million people right? lol Greece was an ally of UK and was seen by UK as distracting Germany (which was pounding UK in Europe) and Italy (which was pounding UK in Africa), why did the UK soldiers went to Greece to help stop the axis?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Churchill, understandably, might have had a British PoV, but the historians Redhat is referring to are just lazy sensationalists trying to make their books read better. You can probably relate to this since you've done exactly the same thing above: Where exactly was Italy "pounding" the UK? Libya? Nope. Egypt? Nope. How about further north? Cape Matapan? Nope. Taranto? Nope. The Nazis might have pushed British forces out of northern Europe (prior to this) and the Aegean, but I'd dispute they were "pounding" Britain in the Battle of Britain. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Britain didn`t take a pounding during the Battle of Britain and the following Blitz, think your doing a dis-service and an insult to the thousands of people who died. Further more comments about Greece which wasn`t even in the war in 1940 are mis-understood--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No im not insulting your soldiers, im just saying what happened. Remember the blitz over UK? what was it? 1 month straight of day and night bombing? if that's not "pounding" then what is? Had it been Chamberlain he would have sue for peace. Didn't brit soldiers surrendered in Greece while trying to help their allies ?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should pick a new user-name; the one you have seems to be somewhat inappropriate. In answer to your questions, in sequence: Not personally; airborne bombing of cities in the UK; No. Pearl Harbour; He would not have been allowed to; Yes, but a lot less than the number of US soldiers that surrendered during the Battle of the Bulge. Rockybiggs - Greece entered the war on October 28, 1940 and was overrun by late April 1941. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the writer was trying to make the point that most of Britain's non-Empire/Commonwealth 'Allies' subsequently surrendered to Germany, effectively leaving a country that had voluntarily gone into a war of coalition in order to help Poland, alone. Britain and France had, since the Entente Cordiale, based their defence policies on certain divisions of arms, in particular the French Navy was supposed to be responsible for patrolling and defending the Atlantic, while Britain assumed responsibility for the Mediterranean and other parts (this was one of the reasons for the development of the armoured deck carriers - they were expected to have to operate within the range of land-based bombers). The Royal Navy's ship building and manpower requirements had been based on these assumptions throughout the 1920's and 1930's and when France surrendered in 1940 it placed an unenviable burden on Britain that had not been anticipated and which was not easy to make up in short time. The bitterness that ensued, after the French 'armistice', was not one-sided, the British had plenty to be peeved about, and, along with what they perceived as a peculiar French perception of the meaning of the word 'honour', was a contributing factor to their action against the French Fleet at Mers el Kebir.

The Soviet Union was if not an actual ally of Germany, at least a de facto one, supplying a large proportion of the oil that Germany used. At one point in about 1940/41 the RAF had planned to bomb the oilfields at Baku to slow down the export of oil to Germany, and indeed, aerial reconnaissance photographs of the oilfields had been taken by Sidney Cotton for this just this purpose. This attack was later cancelled.

For the record, the only non-Commonwealth country the UK then had as an ally after the French surrender was what was then known as The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

All the other 'Allies' had by then surrendered. Most had themselves only entered the war when Germany invaded them. It was only the UK and its Empire, and France, (plus Jordan) who had entered the War of their own volition - the rest, including later, the US, had it thrust upon them by Hitler.

As for what Churchill wrote or said it is as well to remember that he was a politician, and cannot be relied upon. It is fair to say the much of the perceived 'wisdom' regarding him is just whitewash and PR, as befits a politician. Reading the memoirs of people high up in the UK wartime government shows how badly he mis-handled crisis-after-crisis, many of which were the result of his own poor grasp of strategy and tactics, and his out of touch view of the world. If you don't believe me then I suggest you look at the results; Britain and the Empire went into the War as the leading world power, and came out of it bankrupt and surpassed by what had been second rate powers (the US & USSR) before. That's hardly a success.

As for Britain, it is perhaps a little unkind to the occupied countries to suggest that if Britain had wanted to be selfish then she would have been better off accepting the peace feelers put out by Hitler and then using the time bought to massively increase the RN and RAF to a point where she and the Empire would have been able to wage any subsequent war on her own terms. Of course, this would not have helped the millions of people under the Nazi jackboot, nor the countless victims of the concentration and death camps. But there it is.

The British Empire may have had its faults, but many of you reading this are only alive today because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.26 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Could equally be said that others might be reading this but for it...RashersTierney (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point RasherTierney but dont forget Japan who had a penchant for working people to death and bayoneting the wounded and killing nurses and doctors. And Hitler was just ever so slightly worse than the British Empire. I think that, all things considered, those who could of been reading it but for it are somewhat overwhelmed by those who wouldnt of been reading it if it wasnt for the British Empire. India, for example, would be Japanese, and when the Indians protested against Japanese rule the Amritsar Massacre would of paled into virtual insignificance...(Not to mention the slaughter of the Chinese). And the Nazis took really seriously peoples will for self determination and the right not to be gassed...Willski72 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Animated map

Could a space on the article be found for this map from the evolution of the empire article.

Animated map showing growth and decline of the British empire

One of the comments on the FA nomination page was the lack of such a map and i think its far more useful than just providing the few fixed maps of the empire at certain points in time. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher. I disagree, and another FA reviewer also "voted" against it. These animated maps really are very visually distracting, not to mention useless given that you cannot pause them or see any labels, but if anyone really wants it, it's there in all its glory, along with the entry and exit date of every single territory at Evolution of the British Empire, which is prominently linked to at the top of the article. My view is that the Ev of the BE page is the right place for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the map is most needed on the evolution of the empire page, i just didnt see the harm in it being included on this one as well especially if some other people say its lacking one on the nomination page. I dont think the article requires it to gain the FA status, but if others ask for one to be added it should be considered. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pat Ferrick here , animated maps are very distracting--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

They are visually distracting, because they are interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.183.124 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens if you print the article, or read this on Wapedia? The animation won't function then. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek image

Ok. I wanted to revisit the article, specifically regarding the image from Newsweek. Per Non free content criteria #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." For an image of a magazine cover, its primary use would be for the article about the magazine, or a layout or cover that is so significant it is addressed as such in the article as in Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.. Although I recognize the cover signifies that the Falkland Islands War was worldwide news, the text does not address the image of the Newsweek cover was significant to the British empire. If an illustration is needed for the section, Commons has a section on the Falkands War and any of those images could be used here. I know this is inconvenient, but if it goes live on the main page, it's best to have the best solid case for images in the article so they are not removed for fair use violations. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the newsweek image should remain unless it is in direct violation of wikipedia policies or requested by the owner for it to be removed. It is highly symbolic and none of the pictures in the commons linked tell a story like that one does, there is simply no point in adding another image on that subject if that one is removed. Perhaps more of an explanation about the image could be given explaining its importance. The falklands war was the last war fought just by Britain over British overseas possessions and territories. After decades of decline and deconlonization the British Empire fought back for one final time. I would also of liked to of seen an image for the hand over ceremony of Hong Kong as that really was when the Empire truely came to an end. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(There used to be one of the HK handover ceremony but it got removed for the same reasons) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the significance of the Falklands War. However, to adhere to NFCC policy for this image of Newsweek—a copyrighted image—the article must make the case that this image was significant to the conflict, and the British empire. The text of the article does not mention the cover of the magazine right now. Is it possible to make a case in the article that the magazine cover affected the Falklands War or the British empire? Right now, it seems as if the Newsweek cover was one of many newspapers and media illustrating the changing impact of the British empire. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It did not change the war but it symbolizes the war and indeed the last stages of the Empire itself. None of the other images available on this subject come close to informing the reader than the current one and it would be a great shame if the image was removed. Im no legal expert, i dont understand the use of images and when they can and cant be used which is why i never intend to upload one but from what i read keeping it doesnt clearly violate wikipedia policies. If it does violate the rules or is going to pose a problem to this article getting FA status then it should be removed, but it will be a great loss. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly says quite a lot, but you need a source to say that. Verifying its value would help to make the case for those unfamiliar with the topic. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to ask Newsweek if it can be used? Like BritishWatcher I have no clue about this sort of thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pun

I would be interested to know which of the pun classifications outlined on the pun article page "the empire strikes back" [8] supposedly falls into. There is no "exploiting confusion between similar-sounding words for humorous or rhetorical effect" going on here ("the empire hikes back" to refer to, say, British troops advancing across the Falklands - would be a pun). Newsweek merely borrowed the title of the film. I'm not sure what the technical name for that is, but it is certainly not a pun. It's also debatable whether this information should even be in the article without a source explicitly reaching the same conclusion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, Wikipedia, that ever-reliable source. The article you have linked to concentrates solely on words and sounds. Puns are also applicable to phrases (which would include familiar titles) and their applications. There are nine definitions here, [9] only some of which mention sounds at all. The definition I quoted in the edit summary was the first one: "the humorous use of a word or phrase so as to emphasize or suggest its different meanings or applications, or the use of words that are alike or nearly alike in sound but different in meaning; a play on words." Alternatively the Oxford Dictionary [10] defines it as a "a joke exploiting the different meanings of a word or the fact that there are words of the same sound and different meanings." You've taken it in the second sense in both cases.

In this case Newsweek (an American magazine) was using part of the title of a science fiction film (a genre which is not usually taken seriously - i.e. a joke) to highlight a pointless conflict (from the American perspective) waged by a diminished empire against a smaller aggressor (plot of the film). In other words using the same phrase to suggest different meanings. Is this original research? No, of course not. Are there sources which explain it explicitly? No not really (no more so than for your example). However, I have found a number of sources which hint at elements of the above, but have not (as yet) found one which covers all of them neatly. I will keep looking. Wiki-Ed (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we are discussing this but... it cannot be a pun when every single word of the phrase is exactly the same as the original phrase. Where is the word play there? It would not be a pun to put, say, some angry looking politician on the cover of Newsweek with the title "The Incredible Hulk". If they put instead "The Incredible Sulk" - now THAT is a pun. It's a pun because everyone knows it's the Incredible Hulk, and they've replaced "Hulk" with the similar sounding "Sulk". In terms of the Falklands War being an exact parallel of the film, if true, the use of the movie title as a headline would be an example of satire, not a pun. (However, I dispute that this is even true. Why? Newsweek seem to have recycled their headline to refer to Russia [11] and China the year before [12]: and these articles are certainly not making parallels with the film. The Guardian has reused the headline here [13], this time to refer to changing attitudes to the British Empire, and Max Hastings writing in the Mail here [14]. Where is the pun exactly? It's not even, in my opinion, funny, or meant to be funny. It's a pity we don't have the original Newsweek article to read. At the moment you seem to me to be engaging in original research). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one said it was an "exact parallel", regardless of various internet articles comparing the relative strengths/weaknesses of Thatcher/Chewbacca. As to the pun bit, I assume you didn't read any of the links I cited since you are still fixated on sounds and interchangeable words. As per the sources, puns are broader than this and include phrases and their applicability.

Subsequent usage is almost certainly playing on the impact and public awareness of the original article.

And the OR argument... Did you put the image there originally? Even if not, as someone who has edited this article very heavily, perhaps you could explain why it has been retained? Why is the image and its headline so important that we should keep it? If you don't know then why have you allowed it to remain? Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this either. A pun is a play on words, not a literal reuse and I can't see that any of the references given imply otherwise. --Snowded TALK 11:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. "Raiders of the Lost Bark", "The Oddfather", "Luke Who's Talking", "Terminator Poo: Judgement Day" are all puns, with associated groan factor. "The Empire Strikes Back" is just a perfectly normal sentence. Newsweek could conceivably have used it even if the movie had not come out (after all, the makers of Star Wars were not punning on another empire) but the movie did come out, and Newsweek are borrowing it for its aptness to the situation and notability. This site looks like it's for kids but it's a pretty good rundown of punning [15], and funnily enough they even begin with a Star Wars pun "In Star Wars, why did the Evil Empire leave Catholic nuns alone? Force of habit". Now that is a pun. Anyway, I'm starting to feel that we should kill three birds with one stone here (copyright, OR and punnery) and remove the image. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it might be easier to remove it rather than getting bogged down in a debate on the image, although i dont know what it would be replaced with. None of the images on the falklands war commons seem to be significant. If a free source image of the Hand over of Hong Kong ceremony could be found that would fit in well with the end of empire section. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried unsuccessfully before to find one for the handover ceremony, but they all seem to be copyrighted, requiring an explanation for fair use. This one would have been good File:1997TVBbroadcastHandover1.jpg Also, I missed this originally but the Thatcher reelection information was replaced with the Star Wars movie reference when the pun comment was added. I'm sure we'd all agree that the former is more important than the latter, both for this article and the future of the United Kingdom, so I have restored it and moved the "pun" info to the image caption [16], pending decision on what to do with the image. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreeed on putting back that info, although i think it needs rewording slightly. It sounds like that newsweek image secured her victory and made britain a major power again. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be an amusing situation if true, but I don't see how it implies this? The sentence structure is:

• Britain's ultimately successful military response to retake the islands during the ensuing Falklands War

• prompted a headline in the American magazine Newsweek "the Empire strikes back",
• secured British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's re-election the following year,
• and was viewed by many to have contributed to reversing the downward trend in the UK's status as a world power.

I don't see how it can be misinterpreted? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In bullet points its fine, its just reading it all in one full sentence "prompted a headline in the American magazine Newsweek "the Empire strikes back", secured British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's re-election the following year,". I know its not implying anything, just sounds a bit like it when reading it to me. I was just wondering if there could be a full stop after the empire strikes back then go on to say The victory secured British PM.... So its not a single long list. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, and the same advice is given at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Sentences The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, might not be for long anyway if the image is removed not much point in mentioning it in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all mention of Newsweek, both the image and the text. It would be very unfortunate to have the FAR fail because of this minor issue. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

is for the best yes. http://library.thinkquest.org/18802/handover.jpg or http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/hk/essays/handover2.shtml were the sort of image that i think would look good on this page for the end of empire section, but i cant find anything that says its free source. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section change

part of this section has been changed to "Political boundaries drawn by the British as they granted independence to colonies did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions, leading to conflicts in Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. Could we change the word "leading" to "contributing to" or something of a similar tone. Whilst the British Empires actions have made these matters worse they are not the main reason for all such conflicts. Especially the Palestine one which can trace its routes back to before there even was a "Britain" BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well in some colonies it directly led to conflict while in others like as you say in Palestine it contributed to. Mybe we should write that in some colonies led while in others contributed to such conflicts--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I have uploaded a new map File:The British Empire.png. I included Minorca and the Ionian Islands not just because someone suggested that they should be included, but because they are included in the world maps found in the relevant volumes of the Oxford History of the British Empire and Dalziel's atlas of the BE. Also this new map has labels for the territories, so hopefully should be much more useful to the reader than the previous map. I was going to add entry/exit dates too, but thought that this would make it too cluttered and may stoke too many arguments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The map certainly is alot better than the one it replaces, shows alot more detail. Great job BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice map Ferrick, although a more red-ish color should be used such it was the traditional color used [17] [18]--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its great, however one point. In the context of empire you should use Britain not the UK. --Snowded TALK 08:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were opposed to that, but OK, I changed it to "Britain". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The American Colonies or "thirteen of the American colonies"

The terms "the American colonies", "the Thirteen colonies" are the generally accepted terms used by historians to refer to what became the USA.

"thirteen of the American colonies" has 55 hits in Google books. [19] "the American colonies" has 9740 hits [20] and picking a few random ones, they all refer to the USA and not the non-US colonies "the Thirteen Colonies" has 2620 hits [21]

Some examples of "the American colonies"

• [22] The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies, 1760-1785
• [23] Indian Education in the American Colonies, 1607-1783
• [24] The American Colonies Declare Independence
• Niall Ferguson's Empire [25] "By 1777 no fewer than 40,000 men and woman from Britain and Ireland had been transported...to the American colonies... With the American colonies now lost..."
• Lawrence James [26] "Pre-war predictions that the British empire would not survive the loss of the American colonies proved false."

...and the list goes on and on. In fact, I have never seen "the American colonies" used with reference to Canada, the West Indies or British Honduras/British Guiana.

Per WP:V, I suggest that we change the lead back to "However, the loss of its American colonies in 1783..." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I liked the way it was originally. Something like "However the loss of the thirteen colonies in North America..... is not inaccurate and its clear from reading more of the article not all of Britains assets in North America were lost or simply by licking the link to the thirteen colonies. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So do I actually. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No complaints from me if we go back to the original wording. Both it and the current wording are more accurate than the intermediate versions were. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking the titles of lots of books and trying to support them with "Google tests" does not alter the fact that 17 other colonies in north, south and central America remained part of the Empire. You can count them on the nice map, like I did. We also have a section entitled "Loss of the Thirteen Colonies in America" [my italics] which currently says "The loss of such a large portion of British America..." indicating (correctly) that there were other colonies in America which were not lost. If the intro says "the loss of its American colonies...", as proposed, then it incorrectly suggests that all the colonies in America were lost. Aside from being inaccurate it is expressing a US-centric POV. The current wording specifies which colonies are being referred to by linking to the article on "The" Thirteen Colonies. The wording is accurate and specific as-is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiEd would you be ok with ""However, the loss of the Thirteen colonies in North America..." That doesnt imply it lost all of its north American colonies and people can either read on or click the link to read what the thirteen colonies were. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Any use of prepositions (etc) which makes it clear that there were more than 13 British colonies is fine. Your proposed wording would be accurate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you counting colonies on a nice map is truth rather than verifiability, I am afraid. From Encarta [27] "After the loss of the American colonies..." From Britannica [28] "The loss of Britain’s 13 American colonies" (not 13 of). Historians clearly and verifiably refer to the Thirteen Colonies as the "American" colonies, it is not just the titles of books, and you denying that it is incorrect to label the Thirteen Colonies as "American" based on what your understanding of what "American" means is original research. Wikipedia should follow the academic consensus, but BritishWatcher's suggestion is a reasonable alternative. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that looks like a misuse of policy to me. It is both true and verifiable that not all American colonies were lost to Britain. This is not a matter where different POVs collide, but something about which there is not conflict or doubt. It is merely a matter of finding a clear way to phrase this, and this is in our hand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how this is a misuse of policy at all. The wording was changed three times with the following edit comments:

• "The previous text was confusing, as if it was saying the British Empire lost all the American continent"
• "Rv to grammatically correct version. Before there were the 13 did they say "THE" Twelve? "THE" Eleven? What about the colonies in (what is now) Canada? They weren't "lost"."
• "Rv to earlier version - restoring grammatically correct text - check the nice map - there were 30 colonies in the Americas. 13 were lost."

So the reasoning for the current wording is "grammatical correctness", in spite of the wording that virtually every single historian seems to be OK with? We are saying that we here at Wikipedia know better than all these historians and that they are all making grammatical errors? Is that not WP:OR in its finest? And can we therefore apply the same reasononing to the United States of America, because "America" isn't just the United States? Or the American Revolution? Of course not. And why? Because it is verifiable that the term is used in this manner. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pulling seemingly relevant excerpts from books and websites does not mean that the author believes there were only 13 colonies in British America. This does not constitute verification. We do not need to copy their sloppy and anachronistic writing (we only know them as the Thirteen colonies retrospectively). Moreover, it is not original research to clarify something, especially when it is simply reconciling the full content of a book with what actually happened (and not a select quote or snappy title). If you continue to disagree perhaps you ought to first do some heavy editing in the linked articles and expunge all their sources. And Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and anywhere else which isn't "verified" as being located in America. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

("Pulling seemingly relevant excerpts from books" - references, you mean?) Here's a Canadian publication which shows it is perfectly OK, not US-biased and not contradictory to refer to them in this way [29] "The close of the 18th century is an appropriate point for opening any study of Canada's 'expanding economies'. The loss of the American colonies ensured that the remaining regions of British North America - Newfoundland, the Maritimes, Lower Canada, Upper Canada and the West Indies - would be more prominent in the trade with British markets."

Furthermore, the colonies were known at the time as "the Thirteen Colonies": it is not at all retrospective. See this [30] published in 1788. And here you can find lots more from the 18th century, including when they were still British colonies [31] (there are some duff publication dates in Google's database, but there are enough to show that you are mistaken here). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any that date from before 1776? The term "thirteen colonies" seems completely retrospective, in that only thirteen of Britain's Amercian colonies chose to join the revolution - those that didn't eventually became Canada, but prior to 1776 there was no distinction between those that became the thirteen, and those that didn't. All were called American, because they were situated in the continent of (North) America. ðarkuncoll 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It is retrospective because the revolutionary colonies could only be identified and numbered as the "Thirteen Colonies" once they had revolted. Prior to the Revolution there had been other collective nouns (eg. the Dominion of New England in the 1680s); some colonies had split and merged (e.g. New Jersey in 1702); some were not founded until 1732 (Georgia) so there were less than thirteen to count. Some adjacent colonies/territories of British America did not revolt at all. We count those that did and have to acknowledge that there were others which did not. That the selected excerpts (above) suggest otherwise is not our problem; we can see (if only because the text has been quoted) that other parts of those same sources indicate the author is aware there were more colonies in America. The proposed wording seems to suggest that all were lost and this is wrong - verifiably and in truth. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting question TharkunColl, but why is it relevant regarding the question of what term WP should use, how the colonies were referred to pre-1776 (this is 2008 after all)?

• The same applies to the term "Canada". Historians refer to Canada before it existed as a Dominion.
• What historians now refer to as "The British Empire" was not referred to as such for a long period of the British Empire's existence. Yet historians do use the term and so should we.
• The "British Empire" is used to refer to a period in history before Britain even formally existed. Is that "correct"? Who cares? Historians do use the term and so should we.
• The term "Thirteen colonies" was clearly in use by 1776 [32] and the sentence in question refers to these colonies in 1783.
• Britain continued to have North American colonies right up to the 20th century, yet we can find plenty of texts from the 19th century (not to mention 20th and 21st century) still using "the American colonies" to refer to what became the USA [33]

Are we really proposing that Wiki-Ed's wording trumps the use of "American colonies" by Encarta, Britannica, Niall Ferguson, Lawrence James, et al? That we are not allowed to use the term "Thirteen Colonies" which verifiably came into use in 1776 (maybe before, we don't know) and is in use still today? All because Wiki-Ed says so, in the face of a multitude of sources, and he without having provided a single source himself? Come on, guys, seriously... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant because the name differentiates those that rebelled from those that did not. My argument is not that we should not use the term "Thirteen Colonies", but rather that we should not use the blanket term "America" to mean "Thirteen Colonies" when we are trying to explain the evolution of an entity (the Empire) which continued to possess colonies in America until its end. Generalisation in nomenclature might be fine for geologists talking about rocks formed 500m years ago in (what is now) "Canada", but not for historians talking about the naming and political development of that country. You can quote "verifiability" all you like, but when the sky is blue there is no point quoting people who says it's another colour. Your use of lists of sources as a substitute for reasoning does not alter this. Talking of sources, could you provide a reference for your assertion that they were the "most powerful" colonies? Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made my points several times now, and replying would just be me trying to have the last word, so seeing as it looks like we have found a wording that we are both happy with, let's agree to disagree. If the British and the Germans were able to have a Christmas truce in the trenches, I'm sure we can do the same. On the "most powerful" statement, I'm not even sure what "most powerful" means! I just removed it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll - Wording in Lead

• Option 1 (Proposed by Redhat on 8 Nov) "However, the loss of America in 1783..." (
• Option 2 (Proposed by Wiki-Ed on 22 Dec) "However, the loss of thirteen of its American colonies in 1783..."
  • Support as its (i) accurate, (ii) does not require a pipelink to understand fully. --Snowded TALK 22:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support this because it's clear, but also: (User:Wiki-Ed)
• Option 3 (Proposed by BritishWatcher on 24 Dec) "However, the loss of the Thirteen colonies in North America..."
  • Support: avoids misunderstanding of the term "America", uses a term that has verifiably been in use since 1776 ("the Thirteen Colonies"), lest the reader is in any doubt they can click on the link to find out more. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support this too - close to the pre-Redhat edit. Option 2 or 3 are similar enough not to quibble over. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment so, if you are OK with the third option, may we agree to disagree on the term "American colonies" and change the text accordingly to BritishWatcher's proposal? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Option 3 as it addresses concerns raised by Wiki-Ed at the same time as keeping thirteen colonies a clear term and link. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Option 3 as it seems to cover both the viewpoints. I also wouldn't mind Option 2 if it were piplinked to read "However, the loss of thirteen of its American colonies in 1783...". Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I support Wiki-Ed or BritishWatcher proposal as it is more clear and less US-centric and accurate.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that option 3 has the broadest support (and ironically the two editors that had the biggest disagreement here both are OK with it) so I have changed the lead accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm happy with that. The extension to "North America" makes it more misleading than when it was America. Option 1 is at least accurate! OK 13 colonies is an established phrase IF and ONLY IF you are in the know on that period of history and a pipelink on its own is not enough. Lord Cornwallis has a sensible suggestion or modification to option 2. I'm not going to revert for the moment but I don't think the position is clear from this straw poll. Option 3 had two unqualified votes, one who voted for 2 as well and one who was also happy with 2 modified! --Snowded TALK 14:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the specification of North America more misleading? (I thought the vote was "settled" because everyone but one (you!) was OK with option 3 - it won under a proportional representation-style vote, if you will...) My problem with "thirteen of its American colonies" is that "American colonies" is demonstrably used by virtually all historians, and Encarta and Britannica, to mean the Thirteen Colonies. If the wording was "thirteen of its North American colonies", I would probably be OK with that, save for the fact that it has a huge pipelink spanning several words, and I am not a fan of those "easter egg" links where you're not sure what you're going to get from looking at the text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well if it said "The loss of Thirteen Colonies in North America" it would be fine, the insertion of "the" implies that there were only thirteen. Now that might be true if the overall description is America as people will associate it with the current state, as North America it implies that there were no other colonies which is simply not true. Agree on Easter Egg links. Also the general rule on WIkipedia is that you should not have to use pipelinks to understand something. --Snowded TALK 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be completely opposed to the removal of the definite article. There is a reason that we have an article entitled Thirteen Colonies: it is a perfectly well understood term that has been in use since at least 1776. Try a Google book search [34] and a regular Google search [35]. Wikipedians should not be deciding how these colonies are referred to, we should defer to historians per WP:V (countering that every single historian of the BE is "sloppy" or "lazy" in their wording is complete WP:OR). It's already a pretty generous concession to give way on "American colonies" given that virtually every historian of the British Empire, and Britannica and Encarta, use that term specifically to refer to the future USA. If we cannot reach consensus here then I suggest we involve outside opinion at one of the noticeboards, but if we do so I will be lobbying for "American colonies", and will be providing a tonne of sources to support that. Per WP:NCON "Identification of common names using external references" section: "A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English (picking the two relevant ones here...)

• The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
• Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy with American Colonies - you have my complete support for that. Talking about the thirteen colonies in North America in contrast is not supported or in common use. --Snowded TALK 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... well Wiki-Ed is bitterly opposed to "loss of the American colonies". The fact that "American colonies" is so commonly used by historians of the British Empire to refer to the breakaway states separate to Canada and the Windies is not an indication of verifiability as far as he is concerned, rather "lazy" and "sloppy" wording with a view to making their books "read better". Aside from the fact that this argument is not in the spirit of WP:V and WP:OR, it clearly does not stand given that both Britannica and Encarta use "American colonies" too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting the results of a test without establishing any control or measuring system. It's hardly scientific - which is why its impossible to counter it - and pulling out selective quotes which conveniently match your POV is not "verification". A sensible test would observe how an author differentiates between two points of contention in the same section of his/her work. In this case: if the author does not mention the colonies that became Canada and the colonies that became the US together we cannot use the source to verify the statement because the source is not contrasting the two. If s/he does contrast them then we can observe how s/he differentiates between the names.

Example: Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples does mention both on the same page. He splits them in 1775 by using names which were not in official use at that time: "Canada" and the "United States" and then plumps for "Canada" and the "American colonies". Makes for easy reading maybe, but Newfoundland was independent of Canada until 1949, only eight years before he wrote the book.

This is not very helpful for the non-expert reader and I do not think it is wise to copy this terminological inexactitude (sorry). The average visitor to Wikipedia will not have any background in the subject matter. Generalisation is fine when you are treating the subject in isolation, but this particular section is explaining a fork in the fates of different colonies (in North America) and should be clear on the how the subsequent names evolved (as per the historical contexts section of Wikipedia:NCON). If the authors of the quoted sources had decided to try summarising this development in a single sentence then they (too) would need to devise some means of differentiating - either as Churchill did by referencing forward in time or in some other way.

Option 1 is definitely misleading; option 2 is definitely correct but might strike US readers as being odd; option 3 is also correct although the definite article could cause confusion (as per Snowded above). I read this to mean: "the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in (and a separate entity from) North America". That's why I voted for it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are over-analyzing the situation, Wiki-Ed. The same logic applies to the title of a book - which is summarising the entire book in a single sentence, yet authors are quite comfortable doing so with the term "American colonies". The way to solve nomenclature quandries is to see what reliable sources use and whether there is any consensus, and the bottom line is, as my extremely comprehensive list of references below show, they pretty much all refer to the "American colonies". Just because you find "American" confusing (or think that others will) doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not follow the academic consensus on use of the term "American". We already have American Revolutionary War, American Revolution, American English, American Idol. One of the meanings of "American" is pertaining to the United States, separate to the meaning of pertaining to the American continent. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC) ps the last time I inserted a joke example in a list you took it seriously so I must point out that the last one is a (semi) joke!

Featured Article

The article made it to FA status. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Empire The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, its pretty clear that well over 90% of the credit for this goes to you for your efforts. Despite the odd disagreement its been a pleasure to watch the development of the article. --Snowded TALK 14:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Snowded is right, its clear where most of the credit has to go to for the huge improvements to this article and its FA status. Great job BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good work, Red Hat! -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"The American Colonies" - some references

I'd just like to list some references to show that "American colonies" is a standard term amongst historians and other encyclopaedias used to refer to the future United States. A Google book search reveals countless more.

Other encyclopaedias' articles on the British Empire

• Encarta [36] "the loss of the American colonies", "the American colonists", "the American colonies"
• Britannica [37] "the loss of the American colonies", "The loss of Britain’s 13 American colonies"

Book titles

• The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies, 1760-1785
• The American Colonies Declare Independence
• The American Colonies: From Settlement to Independence
• 1,972 Google book titles hits for "the American colonies" - [38] (a browse of the first few pages of hits all seem to suggest they refer to the future USA)

Prose

• Niall Ferguson, Empire [39] "within a few decades of having lost the American colonies"
• Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire [40] "the loss of the American colonies"
• Oxford History of the British Empire, vol 5 [41] "the loss of the American colonies"
• Wm. Roger Louis , Ends of British Imperialism [42] "the loss of the American colonies"
• Ashley Jackson, The British Empire and the Second World War [43] "the loss of the American colonies"
• Historical Atlas of Canada [44] "the loss of the American colonies" (a University of Toronto publication, so cannot be accused of US POV)
• Decolonisation and the British Empire, 1775-1997 [45] "the loss of the American colonies"

There is one notable book which bucks the trend, American Colonies: The Settling of North America. But this is a book about European settlement of North America, not just British, and not just the eastern seaboard of the future United States. There are two meanings of the adjective "American", as the American article and any dictionary [46] will tell you. I say that in the context of specifically British colonialism, the references above clearly show that "American" is used to mean future-United-States-of-American. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that confirms the case for American Colonies. --Snowded TALK 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

How about this? Section title Loss of American Colonies

Main article: American Revolution

During the 1760s and 1770s, relations between Britain and its American colonies became increasingly strained, primarily because of resentment of the British Parliament's attempts to govern and tax American colonists without their consent, summarised at the time by the slogan "No taxation without representation". Disagreement over the American colonists' guaranteed Rights as Englishmen turned to violence and, in 1775, the American War of Independence began. The following year, members of the Thirteen Colonies declared the independence of the United States and, with assistance from France, would go on to win the war in 1783. --Snowded TALK 15:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The disagreement above was actually over the lead! But what do you mean by "members of the Thirteen Colonies" rather than "the Thirteen Colonies"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would start off in the relevant section then move up! I replaced colonists with members and I agree its clumsy so happy with your amendment. As far as the lede is concerned I think it has to be American Colonies, the current phrase is just plain wrong. --Snowded TALK 16:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "The following year, the thirteen American colonies declared their independence, establishing the United States of America. With assistance from France, the colonists defeated the British, who recognised American independence in 1783 at the Treaty of Paris." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It might benefit from a balancing reference to retaining the other X colonies in Canada etc. Otherwise agree. IN practice it wasn't until the betrayal of the native americans in the Treaty of Ghent that US expansion was possible. Up until 1814 both the UK and the US has similar stakes and opportunities in the continent.--Snowded TALK 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Structure and government

How could we fit a section into the article about the structure and government of the Empire?

The current article works well as a history of the Empire, but with little about how it was actually governed, which was different in different territories; the settled colonies, crown colonies, protectorates, protected states, associated states, British India and the princely states, fully responsible status and so forth.

The more subtle distinctions between the white colonies and others could be made (and you can argue about which side the Cape, Natal and Kenya fall).

Perhaps it would need separate articles.

Howard Alexander (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better dealt with/isn't it already dealt with at Dominion, Crown colony, protectorate etc? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Howard, I just came here to note what you have noted. Recently, I have read a lot about the administration of the Empire. The subject is very complex because administration varied from colony to colony and evolved over time. There should be at least a brief summary however, probably before the history section because it explains what the Empire was. There could also be a section on the economy. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what others feel but my view is that the article is long enough already, and this kind of in depth examination of one aspect of the Empire (which in itself is still a pretty huge undertaking given that it was not constant over time and covered numerous territories at different stages of autonomy) is better done at other articles (like Historiography of the British Empire). Otherwise we'll need sections for "religion in the British Empire", "language in the British Empire", "defence of the British Empire", "science in the British Empire", "technology in the British Empire", "changing attitudes to the British Empire", "migration in the British Empire", "flora and fauna of the British Empire" etc etc. There is a reason that the Oxford History of the British Empire covers five volumes, with another five volume companion series! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What about putting in the lead that the administration of the British Empire "was not constant over time and covered numerous territories at different stages of autonomy" and then reference a separate article? It is a key aspect, because it explains why it was considered an empire. An article on the economics of the Empire would explain why it was established. By the way, "flora and fauna of the British Empire" is funny. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why flora and fauna are so amusing - botany played an important role in the Empire, for example botanist Joseph Banks accompanied Cook on his first voyage to the Pacific, and botanical gardens were set up across the Empire with Kew Gardens as a quasi "headquarters" of botany. Plants and seeds were transported across the empire and played critical roles in the economies of the colonies. (You've probably heard of the Mutiny on the Bounty: which came about on a voyage proposed by Banks to collect breadfruit from Tahiti for transportation to the West Indies for economic reasons).

With regard to your proposal, I completely disagree. Firstly, the very first sentence of the article covers the different types of colony. Secondly, it would be an exercise in original research to claim that it was an Empire because it consisted of territories of differing administrations. I have seen no such claims in reliable sources. An Empire is simply "a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government". The Spanish Empire was also an empire yet had a very homogenous system of government within its administrative divisions, as did the Roman Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I could see how information on the structure and government of the Empire would be useful but i think it would take up too much space for a single section on this article and very difficult to place it as it evovled over time. As mentioned the opening mentions the different types of entity (colony, dominion etc) that made up the Empire and that they were administered by the UK. A single article on this issue might be justified if someone has the time to make one, if not then there is already an explanation on dominion page (and others) of how much sovereignty they had. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Redhat to some extent, but the lack of information on the topic does pose a question about how it was administered. In my opinion details on the governing of colonies, dominions, territorise etc belongs under the articles on those areas. Detail on the topic of central government should go in the article on the Colonial Office, which is quite thin. I believe there should be a more substantial link from this article; currently it sits under "See also" with no indication of its significance. However, I am not sure where the link and any others like it (as listed above by Redhat) would sit. Aside from the introduction and "legacy" sections, the article is arranged in chronological order (arguably so is the "legacy" section). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a pretty meaty topic. See section III of [47], a 1907 publication, which goes into the matter in detail as of that time. There are pages and pages on all the gory details! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of general administration rather than great detail. For example, was the empire under the personal rule of the king or did he act under the advice of the executive committee, what power did parliament have, what were the rights of the colonial subjects, what was the role of the English courts and established church, was there a written constitution. Some of these issues were written about quite recently in English cases involving Pitcairn Island and BIOT, and also in US court decisions on the status of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Red Hat: don't worry, I am not trying to re-define the word "empire". When I wrote "numerous territories at different stages of autonomy" I assumed it followed that they were "ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government". By the way, the book you found looks pretty detailed. I have a copy of Burge's Colonial Law and its in five volumes. But I was thinking of something more concise. If you have time, read (or re-read) Blackstone's "Of the Countries Subject to the Laws of England" (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-004.htm), which explains in general terms how the Empire was administered.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI I started the Crown colony article a few weeks ago [48]... if this is an area you have expertise in it could do with fleshing out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The map is wrong

re: The British Empire.png

Bahrain is the little island next to Qatar, not the Omani enclave in the UAE at the tip of the Arabian peninsula on the strait of Hormuz, so the map is wrong. So Bahrain should be shaded but isnt.

see Administrative divisions of Oman

--81.105.251.230 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. It's fixed now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of maps for empires (this is a tangential to this talk page but Portuguese Empire gets a lot less traffic than this page so I thought I'd try to drum up some feedback): I created a similar style map to the B.E. one to replace the existing one at Portuguese Empire.

• Old - File:Portugal Império total.png (unlabelled, not helpful for cross-referencing place names in the article, more appropriate for Evolution of the Portuguese Empire, which covers everthing-that-might-be-described-as-ever-being-Portuguese-to-any-degree, in the same spirit as this map.)
• New - File:The Portuguese Empire.png (has place names and dates, so is more helpful - I think - to the reader, but only shows the principal Portuguese settlements, trading posts and colonies).

However, the new one did not get positive reviews from the first two editors to comment. Which version do people here think is the most useful to understand the Portuguese Empire? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I Personally would go for the second one, whilst it is not outstanding, the first one is vague and i do not understand why the seas are shaded?? Taifarious1 05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The newer map is better, however the arrows do take something away from the map (and maybe make the map slightly ugly to look at, might be worth trying to lose some of the arrows).--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Will look at dearrowifying the map! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar appears to be missing from the map. Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody forgat this in the map :)

Where is Mosquito Coast, also a large part of southwestern Egypt is missing (Egypt inside the BE was not restricted to its current borders, also shouldn't Hawaii be at least represented in SOME FORM? I mean just look at their flag, they fly the Union Jack, only US state to do so.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The M.C. has been added. Egypt's border with Italian Libya was undefined until 1925, it shows the boundary as of that date, which are Dalziel's borders in his Historical Atlas of the British Empire. I have not seen a single map of the British Empire or book that claims Hawaii was ever part of the British Empire. I know you like to make O.T.T. and far-fetched maps (e.g. your creation at Spanish Empire suggesting British Columbia was a Spanish colony) but there is no need to go overboard. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"The M.C. has been added."

• OK cool, although i just checked it and its in the wrong place, the moskito coast touched Honduras and Nicaragua not just the Nicaraguan coast as you portrayed it in the map Pat Ferrick

"Egypt's border with Italian Libya was undefined until 1925, it shows the boundary as of that date, which are Dalziel's borders in his Historical Atlas of the British Empire."

• If the brits were in egypt before the italians , whose territory it should be? i have a world history book showing a map of africa and british egypt has a part of lybia in its territory and nowhere in the map you created you put captions showing British Egypt as of that date (1925 as you say), also the maps of the empires in wikipedia should show ALL LANDS (in anachronic maps) not just as of a specific date , otherwise the whole map should be shown as of a single date.

"I have not seen a single map of the British Empire or book that claims Hawaii was ever part of the British Empire."

• Here we go again...If you don't know something it doesnt mean its false or that it didnt happen as you are implying here. Hawaii was kind of a british protectorate, just look at their flag, that's pretty good evidence I'll say or read about Hawaiian history.

"I know you like to make O.T.T. and far-fetched maps (e.g. your creation at Spanish Empire suggesting British Columbia was a Spanish colony) but there is no need to go overboard."

• Actually no. British Columbia was NEVER a Spanish colony and I NEVER suggested it was, it was a territory of the Spanish Empire only, perhaps you should read more about Spanish colonization and conquests before you so fanatically defend your views (i.e."but there is no need to go overboard")--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both the Mosquito Coast and Hawaii were protectorates, nothing more. I don't know whether that vague term means they should or should not be included on your map, but I think it needs to be consistent. I would suggest that the lack of British administrative control in both cases should rule them out. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. It's a legal term and is not in the least bit vague. Hawaii would seem to have been a "Protected state" from 1794 to 1843, and the Mosquito Coast more closely resembles a "Protectorate". I'll let you decide how to interpret that on your map, but in passing I noticed that there are a number of small islands lying offshore large parts of the Empire which are not coloured the same as the state to which they belong. They appear as grey dots off the south coasts of NZ and Aus; some more off the east coast of North America and one in the Great Lakes, as well as the Florida Keys.Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey you forgat something! where's the small part of northen Cameroon that belonged to UK after WW1 (the one adjacent to Nigeria)? and you also forgat many islands around the world like in Florida and Austrlia (by Tasmania)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Cameroon, and the island specs, I will sort that out. Regarding the Mosquito Coast, that is drawn in maps in sources on the empire (p416 of Vol II of the Oxford History of the BE; Dalziel's Historical Atlas of the BE) as British. Hawaii, however, is not depicted in any of the maps in books that I own or have seen, and I repeat that I have never seen the claim written that Hawaii was part of the British Empire.[49] The story of the flag can be found here [50] "The fact that Ka-meha-meha placed the English flag over his government has sometimes been construed as a technical "cession of the islands to the English crown". But the astute Ka-meha-meha, while looking for English protection from the greed of other nations, stipulated that the Hawaiians should "govern themselves in their own way and according to such laws as they themselves might impose". The action of Vancouver was not ratified in England...and a real protectorate was never established. Nevertheless, there was a nominal guardianship afforded by the presence of the English flag floating over the Hawaiian grass houses and fleets of boats." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, a protected state (rather than a protectorate) like many other countries within the British sphere of influence that no-one would think to include (and therefore we should not). I don't think the reason your sources included the Mosquito Coast is particularly sound, but I suppose it's better than for Hawaii. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think that classification of the Mosquito Coast is sound - see "The Common Law Abroad" p223 and p310 Also the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire "Mosquitia" entry p761. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, i'd like to point out that Tangiers is missing from the map. It was an English colony in modern day Morocco (vaguely opposite Gibraltar)from 1661-1684 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.224.192 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Global struggles with France etc

HI i changed the subheading "Global struggles with France" to "Global struggles with the Bourbons" because france and spain were often allied (familie compacte)against UK like in the 7 yrs war, etc but can somebody help summarize? i think its too long and im going out right now, sorry guys--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. This article is now a Featured Article, and it went through a lengthy - and painful - review (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British Empire) to get that way. There are three problems with your edit:

• It goes into far too much detail (the asiento was already mentioned and linked to; and we don't need to go into such detail on frankly minor diversions - compare the size of what you added versus World War II.)
• (I don't mean to be impolite but...) the prose was not very good.
• It is completely unsourced (note how many references litter the rest of the article).

I also disagree with your changing of the heading. England's primary rival on the imperial stage was first Spain, then the Netherlands, and by this time it was France.

Please discuss here first in future before making major changes like this. I know some people think I feel that I WP:OWN this article, but please refer above to the "American colonies" matter which despite my severe disagreement with some editors I have stuck firmly to the talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes i know it was way too detailed that's why i asked if soembody could help.
• The prose i didn't write it, i got it from the war of Jenkin's ear article, copy and paste.
• it might be unsourced but can you point out mistakes ?
• i understand it was France by the 1700's but remember war with France, and it was war with Spain, they were like a pack, demonstarted in war of spanish succesion/7 yrs war/american revolution, war of austrian succession etc. so i think if its renamed "Global struggles with the Bourbons" it would suit better.

to tell you the truth i dont know how this was a "major change", it was just a simple add, nothing else.

But anyways can we add the war of jenkin's ear (largest british naval campaing in history) and the war of austrian succesion? they are very important , wouldnt you say? especially the war of jenkin's ear to british militar power.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree mention is probably merited, if only because Britain was eyeing Spanish America but ended up with nothing at the end of it. However, a sentence should be ample. Do others agree? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's not strictly true. There were lots of territorial changes in the Carribbean between 1500 and 1750 and Britain certainly came out with more than it started with. Some of the colonies in the Lesser Antillies were very lucrative in their day, far more so than the land further north (e.g. Virginia). I'm not sure we should write this off with just a single sentence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I know there were. However, this war was a serious - though unsuccessful - attempt by Britain to dismember the Spanish Empire: "Those who pushed for war held out the prospect of spectacular gains at the expense of Spain.... The course of the war belied the hopes of those who had promised spectacular gains at the expense of Spain in America." [51] page 157 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

oh btw add the missing parts to the map already!! XD lol don't rush :)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok but I dont think you guys add it yet (war of jenkin's ear passage).

• "There were lots of territorial changes in the Carribbean between 1500 and 1750 and Britain certainly came out with more than it started with."

All european countries did (except Portugal, it occupied one island but left it after a while) :P--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Territory and other issues re map

I've been following your discussion about protectorates and such farther up and figured it best to place this set of issues in a separate discussion. First off, Oregon Territory is entirely mislabelled - read taht article, taht's a post-1846 American territory, and not hte British name for that region, which was Columbia District. it's also distinct from New Caledonia (Canada) which lay north of it, and explicitly neither were British territory, rather British claim based on the activities of HBC fur districts (or its predecessor the North West Company). Any mention of "Oregon" is inappropriate on the map as that was an American expansionist propaganda-agenda/term and had nothing to do with British tenure in the area. The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 also explicitly laid out that neither country could lay claim to possession of the region between the 42nd Parallel and the 54-40 one - which bisected New Caledonia. Simllarly the Athabasca District and North-Western Territory were not British title either, they were operating regions of the HBC, which only had title to "lands draining into Hudson Bay" (see Rupert's Land), which please note also includes the upper/southern Red River Valley, which was part of Rupert's Land until 1818...as was, until 1812, the region known to the Amreicanas as the Great Northwest (MN, WI, MI etc.).. I don't oppose the Columbia District being in the map (all other regions became part of Canada, other than those like the Red River and Minnesota etc which lay south of 49) but it should at least be labelled correctly. Too small on the map, also, was the HBC's lease of the Alaska Panhandle's southeastern coast from Russia 1838 onwards; though British title again there was not recognized, but it was actually more of a formal tenure than anything the HBC had south of that, where tenure/ownership was specifically excluded by treaties with the Spanish, and then the US...).....these were less part of the empire, in legal terms, than any protectorated or protected state (ostensibly there were 'protected states' in the area vis a vis the Royal Proclamation of 1763 though these rarely show up on the map, though modern-day First Nations invariably invoke the Proclamation in reference to their land claims and challenges to the legal status of their ancient lands - the Proclamation also sounds a lot like what Kamehameha opined about the British flag in one of the sections above). Anyway, "Oregon Territory" is even more wrong than "Oregon Country" would be, and the fact of the matter is that 1763 onwards, for howevermuch a brief period, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsins etc were "part of the British Empire", at least in legal terms (as former parts of the conqeured New France).Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've searched in all my books on the British Empire and cannot find any map or statement that says or depicts it as part of the BE. I will remove it altogether. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe not a proper historiographical source, but Jan Morris in her Pax Brittannica series does describe it as "part of the Empire" (in the chapter on the Hudson's Bay Company, can't remember which of the three volumes that's in though....Skookum1 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts: various historians of British Columbia, particularly the Akriggs (BC Chronicle) do use wordings along the lines of "being lost to the Empire" in reference to what they (the Akriggs) style as "Southern Columbia" (WA/OR/ID/western MT); the online Begg and Howay-Scholefield British Columbia from the earliest times to the present also matter-of-factly make reference to the Columbia District being "part of British North America"....and the American Empire map shows 54-40 as a one-time possession of the US; or did; even though it was only an exclusionary claim as described below....what sauce for the goose etc...Skookum1 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (lol) you shouldn't have removed the Oregon Territory, it was jointly administered by UK and USA but after the mid-1800s it became American(ceded by UK), what was the American slogan of the day? hmmnn... "54'40 or fight!" (longitudes, latitudes where Oregon territory was situated) :)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL Euro-History, you should stick to European history; no offence, but you're way off-base here. "Oregon Country' was the name of the region as claimed by the United States, the Oregon Territory was not chartered until 1848 (2 years after British claims south of the 49th Parallel were null and void as of the Oregon Treaty. The �British term for the region was "Columbia District", and as various sources show it was not contiguous with the Oregon Country, despite sharing a common southern and eastern frontier. I'm sure pfly, who is a colleague in Pacific Northwest history with me on a regular basis, must have alrady outlined this in his previous post just below, which I've only glanced at (sorry, pfly) for now; the US claim boundary at 54-40 bisected the other fur district west of the Rockies, New Caledonia, and in between was a region then loosely referred to as the Thompson Country which was not really part of either, although the fur post at the confluence of the North and South Thompson Rivers was admijnistered by the Columbia Department, a term which takes in areas not in the Columbia District per se in terms of company operations. The usage "Oregon" was decidedly American in flavour and also in "POV"/implication; the very use of the term acknowledge the US claim to rights of the area and the fur company employees did not use it, nor did British official correspondence. it's very ironic that you would insist on using it as the correct term as it's anti-British in political context and very Manifest Destiny in tone/nature. And there's an important distinction between Oregon Country and Oregon Territory, so your nomenclature is doubly wrong. (see those articles). Anyway now I'll see what ground pfly covered: i just had to give the particulars of the terminology, as your "NOOOOOOOOOO" is wildly mistaken....Skookum1 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• When i said Oregon territory i wasn't defining it (even though it was wrong), I was just grouping it together .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, yes, thanks for admitting that, but you did capitalize "Territory" (i.e. made reference to a proper name), and alos the phrase "jointly administered by UK and USA" as there was no such administration by either party, and such administration was expressly forbidden; British subjects in the region were governed by Company law and subjected to the Laws of the Colony of Canada, as a sort of extraterritoriality, but the only administering going on was the Venerable Company's books and daily operations; actual administration for most of the period involved remained in the hands of the indigenous governments, such as they were, as stipulated by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, but only insofar as British interests were involved; an expat American administration in the form of the Provisional Government of Oregon took root in 1843 but it was not a US administration and in fact was heavily weighted in its ambitions towards being a separate country...again, at least until the point of the establishment of that government, whose adminsitration only applied to the new-come American settlers. But I'll return to a theme come up with below; if HongKong is on the map, then definitely Forts Astoria, Vancouver, Colville and certain others should also be....even if the territory as such is not; likewise Fts Taku and Stikine (and in that case there was land involved as well, not just owned-properties in the form of the forts in the Columbia District. And it's odd, also, for a history page on the British Empire to use a term to refer to a region by t hat region's name in the American polity; it does disservice to the British history and legacy of the region in question....Skookum1 (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... I'd personally be inclined to include it on a BE map although I understand how it was a rather informal part of the empire, generally governed by the Hudson's Bay Company rather than the British government itself. But the British government did get involved a number of times, and a number of high-level treaties were made that recognized British rights there, and British warships were sent to protect British interests, etc. In addition Britain had claims based on prior discovery (eg, Cook and Vancouver, although the claims were not unchallenged) as well as actual occupation. For several key decades the HBC was the only imperial institution in "Oregon", despite the "joint occupation" agreement with the US. A look through the various historical atlases and maps and books on the subject I have around the house turns up a number of maps that show the so-called Oregon Country as British territory--usually described as "jointly occupied", or similar wording, with the United States. In the end, when the joint occupation was terminated, the negotiations took place at the highest levels of the British and US governments. (and just to clarify, Oregon Country was not wholly "ceded by the UK"--it was divided more or less down the middle... yes the slogan ws 54-40 or fight, but in the end it was 49 and no fight :) ) Anyway, I'm not sure whether these things make it "part of the British Empire" or not. I'd have assumed yes, but perhaps it comes down to just what the word "empire" means. Most of the maps I have at hand use terms like "British territory" or "possessions" rather than "empire". At the least it seems reasonable to say that between 1820 or so and 1845 the British "possessed" the region and applied British rule of law, mainly via the Hudson's Bay Company (and leaving aside the issues of indigenous people). British rule of law prevailed, at least near the core around Fort Vancouver, to the point that when Americans did begin to settle nearby, near the end of "joint occupation", they felt obliged to set up their own government in order to avoid automatically being placed under British de facto rule. So my gut reaction is to want to say yes, it was part of the British Empire--but then I am not sure I fully understand what made a region technically and legally part of the empire. Pfly (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing would have made it legally part of the Empire as it was not a legally defined institution: On Wikipedia it's your sources vs Redhat's. You'll only convince him to change the map if you can cite them, regardless of what actually happened. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, and I don't have the time or inclination to pursue it. I'd have thought the Treaty of 1818 had "legally defined" the region, but whether it made it part of the "empire" or not I don't really know. Pfly (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Well, first off let me explain that there is a further issue relating to the Red River "bulge" (south of Winnipeg) as the Hudson's Bay Company title to "all the lands draining into Hudson Bay" was a rather odd beast, as it was a company charter (rather than a colonial one; by the basis by which Rupert's Land, of which that region was part of, at least until 1818, was a private holding and only "part of the British Empire" because its offices were headquartered in Montreal and/or London (the operational HQ was in Montreal, the corporate and BoG offices in London, is how I think that worked, but I"m not familiar with the technical/corporate legalities of the Company's structure. When the time came, de facto "possession" resulted in the transfer of the HBC's tenure in the region to the Dominion of Canada, sort of a birthday present from London to the newly-minted Dominion, but whether or not Rupert's Land was "part of the British Empire" in absolute chartered terms is highly debatable; it wasn't a colony, nor was it a possession; though by 1867 it was regarded as part of British North America and was regarded as a possession, likewise the Athabasca District and non-Rupert's Land territories to the north and northwest of it. By that date, New Caledonia and the remainder of the Columbia District, plus the area of BC between teh line of the Nass and Finlay Rivers (after 1862 the Stikine Territory, quickly absorbed into the colony of BC in 1863, as was teh Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands]]. The reason I've gone into this in some detail was because of the nature of the "corporate imperial title", i.e. a private landholding/tenure vs a chartered colonial government or possession....the difference with New Caledonia and the Columbia District is that in those regions the Company could not have title (because of the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, which forbade claims of outright territorial possession by either party), but instead the Company had a license to trade with the Indians in those areas, i.e. such taht no other British company could operate in that region in the same capacity. The terms of the Convention, also, were not "joint occupancy", which is a common term evolved over the time since and indeed during the 1818-1846 period, but technically all it meant was that citizens of both powers had the right to conduct business and settle in the region but that claims of national possession could not and would not be pressed by either party, and that the agreement stipulated that no other power was excluded from similar activities and the agreement did not rule out the right of other powers to make claims (as France had intimated it might, and Russia attempted to do in 1821, though without any active settlement or corporate enterprise). Despite those terms, both the US and Britain reacted with great hostility to the Russian assertion of outright claim in 1821 (I'll be writing an article about that "soon" - LOL, huh Pfly?); the Russian attempt to claim the region was undone by the successive treaties of 1824 adn 1825 with the US and UK respectively, which really left only those two in the field, as France was a non sequitur at this point and Spain's intentions had already been ruled out and limited to teh 42nd Parallel (something Mexico might have challenged but did not try, or bother). Other than that, in a very real legal sense, neither the US nor Britain had any clear possession of the area. However, because the terms of the Oregon Treaty clearly state that the Hudson's Bay Company properties in the former Columbia District south of 48 were to be preserved and/or compensated, it's clear that some title, of exactly the same kind (at least) as held by the possession of Rupert's Land by the Company, were in play and were recognized by the US. Unlike Rupert's Land the company held no charter over the region as they had east of the Rockies, and such claims were confined to the posts themselves, and to company farmlands and private holdings of its employees. Fort Vancouver, therefore, likewise Umpqua, Nisqually, Hall, Colvile and others, were decidedly part of the British Empire, if in a more pointillistic fashion than the sweeping "all lands draining into Hudson's Bay" that the Red River was part of.....there certainly was more British occupancy of the region than there was in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Illinois, and actual physical title to private property by British subjects. I note that the map does not show, hoever, the British "spheres of influences" in China or in Persia, and didn't notice if the Anglo-French/Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was marked. Hong Kong, however, was only a lease and never a British possession; and a similar lease was held 1838-1867 by the HBC of the southeastern Alaska Panhandle (from Wrangell/56-30 southwards, east of Clarence Strait, which the colonial government, and the later provincial government, held was on a part with the lease on HK. If HK's on the map, in other words, then so should the Alaska Panhandle lease be shown....and given the outright-possession of Fts Vancouver, Astoria/George, Nisqually, Okanagan, Spokane, Colville, Hall, Umpqua etc, then even if the Columbia District south of 49 is not shown, the forts should be if only as single-point markings. It's customary on historical maps of the region to show a barber-stripe, either in two colours or four (sometimes five) to indicate overlapping claims of possession; in 1818 British agreed to shelve its claims, which had been being made since Cook landed, and were back-dated to DRake's time.....assertion of title did exist until 1818, but was void from that date until 1867. Technical, but you asked for teh details; "claim" in international/imperial laws is as good as possession, t least insofar as map making goes, and as I've opinted out before not even Canada's claims in the High Arctic are unchallenged, and there has been no active cccupation/economic use/ settlement in much of that region, though it's still shown as being "part of Canada".....(you can't tax rocks and stones, though some have tried...>). Myself, I can't see how a region which had upwards of a dozen busy commercial establishments and a few hundred British subjects resident and active in it, when nobody else was, as not being part of the Empire, especially when their landholdings were considered "real" by the treaty of 1846.....all food for thought; again, the nature of the HBC tenure in Rupert's Land should be considered in relation to at least recognizing that the HBC forts were part of the Empire, even if in technical terms the regino they were in was not (though before 1818 that's a dubious question due to the claims/possession issue). Either they're on the map, or Hong Kong should be removed. It's a slippery slope, but logic often is....Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Australia 1815

Yellow=British claim from 1788

The Port Phillip settlement was started in 1803 but abandoned the next year and not begun again until 1835 so the Melbourne area should not be shaded pink if this is a map of settlement. Although it was part of the British claim to Australia, of course. Perhaps it would be possible to indicate the full British claim in a lighter colour? Also, Tasmania was known as Van Diemen's Land at the time. --Roke 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom or Empire

I've always wondered: if Empires are run by Emperors, shouldn't it be Empress Elizabeth II rather than Queen Elizabeth II and shouldn't it be the United Empire rather than the United Kingdom? Spinach Monster (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general banter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

the title of Emperor comes from the Roman term Imperator which means to command but was a common title given to military commanders and the title was not what made Augustus (the first Roman Emperor) an Emperor.

the title was once offered to George III during the stuggles with France but it was decline probably on the basis he didn't want to be seen as an tyrant. Moreover, during the occupation of India the Monarchy were known as the Emperor or Empress of India.

As for the the United Kingdom or United Empire, the United Kingdom refers to the four Home Nation i.e. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales and the Empire as a whole was know as the British Empire.

Remember, the British Empire is now the Commonwealth and therefore there is no need to refer to the U.K as an Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.29.212 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The term Empire was seldom used until the Victorian era. To many Georgians the term was associated with "Continental tyranny". They would insteady generally refer to their possesions and territories. Britain never formally became an Empire, the term is just one of popular usage. Queen Victoria did become Empress of India, but Britain itself always remained a humble monarchy, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from a few very brief tactical suspensions of that total maritime domination, after all, the Britain had an entire Maritime World to control; the Royal Navy ruled the oceans of the World for more than three centuries, from the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 to the destruction of the combined German and Italian navies between 1939 and 1944.

No you didn't. is this what they teach (from elementary schoolers to university students) in UK? The Spanish Armada was defeated more by weather than the embryonic English "navy". Also read books not written by your blind patriots who chant "Rule Britannia" or "britannia rules the waves" whatever you guys say, the truth is not with you, the defeat of the Spanish Armada was just a small pebble in the Spanish Road, how do you explain the couple of Armadas they kept sending at England in the next few years? but look when England tries to invade Spain (1589), you get soundly defeated and have to wait until the next century (1625) to send another armada at Spain (which was again defeated and this time you had more help than in 1589) If Uk "ruled the waves" how come you were almost invaded again in 1779? (weather save you again) or how come your european enemies could so easy bypass your lanes (as shown in american revolutionary war)? Learn your own history before spewing nationalist crap.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, some stunning liberal views their euro and `crap` as you say. Furthermore the ``invasion`` of 1589, was not an invasion at all, but an attempt to destroy the remainder of the Spanish Fleet. 1625 was more like a raid. As for 1779 Great Britain was involved in a war with best part of the world U.S.A, France, Spain, Holland etc, hence the Royal Navy was stetched as never before, and consequently could not dominate everywhere at the same time. --Rockybiggs (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where it says this in the article?Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. Someone posted a high school essay here a few days ago. It was about as inaccurate as Eurohistoryteacher usually is, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum, hence the diatribe. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher, I'm glad you weren't my teacher in high school! The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 proved to be such a blow to Spain that she gradually lost the might she had hitherto enjoyed as one of the foremost powers in Europe. While the weather did play a role in scattering the ships, Drake's idea of sending smaller, more agile fire ships among the cumbersome Spanish ones proved to be the deciding factor which led to the destruction of Philip II's fleet, which was sent, with the overt approval of the Pope Sixtus V, with the sole purpose of forcibly imposing Catholicism on a sovereign nation which had a Protestant queen whom the Pope had previously excommunicated. Philip also wished to have a free hand in suppressing the Protestant regions (which Queen Elizabeth aided) in the Low Countries not under Spanish rule--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

After 1588 Spain still had a huge navy but it didnt change the fact that it was often run by incompetents and this (along with corruption) lead to it slowly becoming obsolete. Although the defeat of the Spanish Armada didnt lead to an instantaneous domination of the oceans by Britain it was a decisive turning point in who would hold power in the future. Also the 'Britannia Rules the waves' thing was written when Britain's navy was three times bigger than the second and third biggest navies put together. This didnt mean it could be everywhere at once but given a couple of weeks/months of preparation it would of quite easily smashed any other navy into oblivion, (bearing in mind it was written a hundred years after the seven years war/American war of Independence ,depending on whether you're European or American, when Britain was at its peak and other European nations were only just catching up with the Industrial Revolution). Finally Britain could afford to have such a massive navy only because she could also afford to have a very small standing army, being an island and all. ([User:Willski72])Willski72 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And on the Kingdom or Empire thing, the British Empire began as a trade thing, initially it was all about the making of profit. Unlike many Empires there was no collective drive to expand it was mainly a hotchpotch of individuals and companies and perphaps a government decision would lead to expansion but mainly on the pretence of protecting land already taken or protecting trade etc. In fact early on the Empire was not seen as very important and was often left to social misfits. It was only in the latter half of the Victorian era when a resurgent Europe began to play a major threat that Disraeli and others began to promote the Empire and patriotism etc, including making Queen Victoria Empress of India. It is for this reason that the King/Queen of the United Kingdom was never made Emperor as their was no major co-ordinated policy. It was just naturally assumed that they were the titular head of each 'province' who would be represented by the viceroy, they saw no reason to be Emperor of the lands. Also the United Kingdom was created as a peaceful Union of the 4 nations of the British Isles in an attempt to create unity against France etc. England, Wales and Scotland were already united as Great Britain and now Ireland was being added on to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Each nation was supposed to be equal and so the King was king of them all not king of one and Emperor of the others.Willski72 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Britain's influence in South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East

Not much mention is made in the article of the considerable influence Britain had on the drawing of borders in South America after the breakup of the Spanish Empire and elsewhere around the globe. I think the influence of the British Empire extends far beyond the colonies it established and named as formal properties of the British Empire and later the British Commonwealth. Landroo (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we had a discussion about informal empire before. I'm not sure why it got shelved although I suspect it was because it was informal and the article limits itself to actual territories, rightly or wrongly. The bit about dismantling the Spanish Empire might upset certain editors, but maybe it has a place here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a nod to the "informal empire" - see the first paragraph in "Britain's imperial century (1815–1914)". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland "overseas"

An editor (in Dublin) is repeatedly adding [52] a statement implying Ireland is overseas, and I have twice reverted it, for the following reasons:

• A distinction is drawn in reliable sources between "overseas" colonies and Ireland - as was discussed a long time ago on these pages [53] Newfoundland was an "overseas" colony, Ireland was not.
• The plantations of Ireland are discussed after this section, so adding this text would make it out of place, discussing it before the idea is introduced, and unnecessarily duplicating the info.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is patently absurd. Just because people of a particularly nationalist British viewpoint wish to view Ireland as not overseas does not mean the sea between Ireland and Britain dries up and suddenly makes Ireland, well, not overseas. Your argument is irrational in every respect. Ireland is an island. Britain is another island. There are at least two seas between both countries. This should be very straightforward, should you put aside your politics. Get over it. Reverted. 78.16.149.43 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "overseas" is not a political issue so let's not go down that road. The matter has been discussed at length previously - you may find the link to the previous discussion (above) quite interesting. To summarise what the debate covered:

• No-one disputes the existence of a body of water between the two islands.
• (I do not know if this is the case in Ireland, but) In the UK the word is taken to mean foreign and distant rather than literally "over-the-sea". Without meaning to gloss over British/Irish cultural differences, the peoples have a lot in common (when compared to distant nations) so by using that word we infer that all the previous shared history never took place.
• If we say Ireland is "overseas" to the UK then we also have to start considering other places which were colonised by the English before Ireland, such as the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Mann, Calais...
• Multiple sources cite locations in the Americas as being the "first overseas" colony, so by changing the sense of the sentence you undermine the logic and flow of a featured article which is about an empire that developed during the age of discovery and not about medieval feudalism.

Moreover, as Redhat has pointed out, the actual ventures in Ireland are mentioned in the subsequent paragraph in the correct (sourced) context so there is no need to insert a caveat in this section. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good points, i agree with WIki-Ed and Redhat. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Do these tiresome Irish ultra-nationalists ever give up? Of course Ireland is not "overseas" anymore than is my own island of Lewis. siarach (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From where I sit (Dublin) your own Lewis is most definitely overseas. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"The use of the word "overseas" is not a political issue so let's not go down that road." says Wiki-Ed before going straight into a political tract on the cultural distinction between Ireland and Newfoundland. This is pure extreme British Nationalist POV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To feed the troll or not to feed the troll. That is the question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we please leave politics out of it, Sarah? It is not just British authors who view Ireland as not being overseas. The American Professor Kevin Kenny, editor of Ireland and the British Empire also makes the distinction. See his introductory essay: p5 - "Most historians would agree that the British Empire, in the familiar sense of overseas expansion, conquest, and settlement, came into existence in the late 16th or early 17th century". p6 - "English involvement in Ireland at this time had little to do with imperialism in its high Victorian sense and was instead chiefly a matter of domestic dynastic struggles. Such internal struggles for mastery, however, were precisely what 'empire' or imperium meant in this early period. European colonialism originated as an internal rather than an external process; only when dominion had been established did overseas empires gradually emerge." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely what's important, in the context of the section, is that, at the time, the British did not see Ireland as "overseas" in the same sense as the more distant colonies. This does require the text to be clarified slightly. The modern geographical definition is different. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think talk of feeding Trolls and the breach of WP:GF by An Siarach does not help and is unnecessarily provocative. Any article about Empire needs slightly higher levels of sensitivity on language. It is clear, that in the context of the time Ireland was not seen as overseas, indeed I very much doubt that the phrase 'overseas' was in common use at the time and probably had very little relationship to how we currently understand it. That said, this encyclopaedia is written for a modern readership and if possible we should avoid provocation. IN this context we should try and find another form of words. I suggest simply deleting overseas it makes the same point and better.--Snowded (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's handy to have the little tags showing the order in which comments were made. From this we can see that the provocation started with the anon IP. The subsequent comments about ultra-nationalism would seem to have been unfounded and unnecessary, but then when a rational attempt to mediate with geographical/anthropological points was attacked by another user displaying said traits one has to wonder. As for alternative wording: "Overseas" means "abroad" or "in a foreign country" or "beyond the sea". I cannot see that one of these alternatives would be any less offensive to those with a POV agenda. The quote Redhat provided seems to address the issue directly. Perhaps the other party could provide a source rebutting this? If not then there is no case for amending the wording. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, the fact that someone else started it does not justify the response; such behaviour leads to escalation. We have to take modern use into account in making a decision. The issue which is being stated here is that colonisation stopped for a period, overseas is superfluous text. --Snowded (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The issue here is that the colonisation took place in a geographically distant and distinct location from the home nation. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be following the debate or article wrong but if we removed "overseas" it would make matters worse. The IP had a problem because it didnt mention the fact there was expansion or something going on in Ireland at the time which doesnt get mentioned because we dont consider Ireland to be "overseas". I dont have a big problem with the adding of "with the exception of Ireland" as suggested or something similar, but the original points made by redhat and Wiki do seem reasonable and the fact it has been gone over before. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire problem with all of the above - particularly the remark 'In the UK the word is taken to mean foreign and distant rather than literally "over-the-sea". Without meaning to gloss over British/Irish cultural differences, the peoples have a lot in common' - is that it is predicated on a view of the past which is wholly present-centred. This is what is known in historical discourse as presentism. In sixteenth-century Ireland, as a contributor to the previous discussion here noted, Ireland was viewed as overseas under all of the "foreign" categories noted by the above modern day reader. The seven days it took to sail from Chester to Dublin alone was sufficient to carry this point for the average Tudor official, as was his despair at the frequent loss of treasure and supplies en route. From language to legal system to dress code, Ireland was far more foreign to Englishmen in 1555 than France or Germany is today (to continue with such flawed present-centred interpretations of the past). The language of barbarism versus civility carried enormous weight with the average Tudor official, even with moderate officials such as St Leger. As is well established, the principal ideological strand in English thinking on Ireland was to "civilise" the "wilde Irishe", where civility was synonymous with anglicisation (See, for instance, the Act for English Order, Habit, and Language in 1537). In other words, the entire ideological justification of the English conquest (as with all conquests) rested upon the idea that the Irish were very different (to be euphemistic about it). No historian of sixteenth-century Ireland challenges this point, especially since D.B. Quinn's work in the mid-twentieth century and Nicholas Canny's work in the 1970s (comparative studies of English colonial policy in Ireland and the New World where the former was the practising ground for the latter). Consequently, saying Ireland was not England's first overseas colony because it is culturally similar to England in 2009 is intellectually flawed at the most basic level. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seven days to sail from Chester to Dublin? They can't be much more than 150 miles apart. Was this using rubber dinghies? The point about "wilde Irish" would presumably apply to Highland clans in Scotland too so I'm not sure it's relevant. The point I was making about "distinct" referred to exotic (distant) cultures which contemporary Englishmen encountered (eg. the Japanese or Maya). Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord Deputy St Leger to Henry VIII (12 September 1540): St Leger left Henry on 19th July for West Chester, where ‘he tarried for wind till Thursday the 5th of August’; which day I took shipping there, and after 7 days lying on the sea, arrived at Dublin’, State Papers 2 Correspondence Relating to Ireland Henry VIII, Part 3 Continued (1834), p. 235. If you want to actually be sarcastic, two of us can play at that. I prefer history, however. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, so you're basing your argument on personal analysis of a single passage from a primary source. Secondary sources suggest it would take between a few hours and one and a half days: [54] or [55], which is in the same range as the time required to get from London to Chester by horse. Hardly "distant". Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside I checked footnote 9 as its author claimed Nicholas Canny referred to colonial activity in Ireland as 'domestic', an unusual claim to anybody familiar with Canny's work. As expected Canny did not actually refer to Ireland as 'domestic' colonialism. Rather, he placed the words 'domestic' and 'overseas' in quotations and then proceeded to show how ideology, policy, and actions in the "New World" had striking similarities in both Ireland and North America. As if to expand his point he cited one Thomas Blennerhasset, a propagandist for the colony in Ulster, warning potential colonialists that 'loiterers and lewd persons in this our new world will not endure'(p.10). The "new world" for that settler in 1610 was Ireland, and he was saying virtually the same thing in Ireland as was being said in Virginia. None of the above posters seem to be familiar with the now widely accepted parallels between colonial policy in Ireland and North America. One more point, somebody else above said a distinction is drawn in "reliable" (sic) sources between Ireland and "overseas" colonies. I have not seen any evidence of this and indeed a quick search for 'overseas' in the above book (The Oxford History of the British Empire) includes the following result: 'In 1558 the bulk of English maritime activity was confined within European waters; overseas possessions were limited to tenuous toe-holds in the Channel Islands and Ireland'(John Appleby, p.55). Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Back once again as I decided to check the above user's quote of Kevin Kenny and it is deeply misleading. The entire quote about "English involvement in Ireland at this time" ('at this time' being the key words) referred to the late medieval period, specifically the time of Poynings Law in 1494. Nobody that I can see here is talking about the 1490s, but rather the point is being made that in the 1550s came England's first overseas expansion in the imperial and plantation sense that was used in America later (the plantations of Laois and Offaly). In other words, Kenny's above quote referred to the late medieval period, but the wikipedia editor in question implied it referred to the 1550s. Indeed, Kenny is very clear about Ireland's role at the centre of the emerging overseas British Empire: 'The full-scale colonization of Ireland got underway in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century....This process of Irish colonization was not some anomalous sideshow to Empire: it was at the very heart of British imperial expansion. The settlements on both sides of the atlantic, as is well known, featured the same types of corporate structures and commercial enterprise, the same sorts of migrants and in several prominent cases - Humphrey Gilbert, for example, or Walter Raleigh - the same people. Strategically, economically, and culturally, English colonialism achieved its earliest triumphs in Ireland, establishing a model for other ventures further afield.' (Ireland and the British Empire, pp. 6-7) Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you have done here is to identify a weakness in the article, in that it takes a 19th C concept of "British". While the military of economic conquests/integration of Wales and Scotland can be seen as an extension of 1066, Ireland (including the plantation) is clearly colonisation. Maybe its a section or sub-section which summarises a lot of your comments above? --Snowded (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Dunlavin Green, you have not read it properly if that is your conclusion. Please go back and read it again. You can also read the Oxford History of the British Empire Volume I, Origins of Empire, if you are still of that opinion. Also, Snowded, you might want to read Kenny's chapter, as he directly addresses (and refutes) the idea that it was a continuation of Norman era. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For Snowded: Not the least dilemma in writing history is where to begin. In the case of Ireland and the British Empire...should one go back in time, to the early Tudors or, ultimately, the Norman conquest? There are some obvious objections to starting so far back as the twelfth century. The Norman conquest certainly involved colonization and it would be a useful exercise to compare it with the latter settlements under Elizabeth, James I, Cromwell and William or Orange... Thus when Edmund Spenser and others following suit in the sixteenth century, they were drawing on precedents long since established. But early modern England...differed from medieval England in ways that were critical to the onset of colonial expansion: a more powerful centralized state, the availability of aggressive commercial capital, the militant providentialism of Reformation Protestantism, and on the basis of these, a commitment to large-scale permanent settlement of expropriated territory. Most historians would agree that the British Empire, in the familiar sense of overseas expansion, conquest and settlement, came into existence only in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. There was no British Empire, even in terminology or in fact, before then. - in other words, one can compare Tudor plantations to what went on in Norman times, but they were not the same historical "phenomenon" - the B.E. did not begin in Norman times. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this, Snowded [56]. The link between Tudor and Norman intervention in Ireland is made, but it is not claimed that the British Empire actually began in the 12th century. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ There are two issues here. The first is "overseas" which I think should be deleted, it then reads well and avoids confusions and sensitivities, I don't see anyway in which it would make it worse and propose to make that change unless anyone strongly objects. The second is the position of the 16th and 17th C in Ireland which is and always has been a controversial issue. I think that is a weakness in the article, although the current wording is acceptable. I think it needs attention from an expert or two (and I freely admit that I am an amateur in this area). I explicitly state that you can't take the empire back to the Normans by the way. --Snowded (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than replying by telling somebody they are wrong (without defining where) and to re-read it (without defining "it"), perhaps it would be more honest to address the issues raised. Also, Snowded was clearly speaking about Wales and Scotland being a continuation of 1066, whereas he agreed that Ireland was a new type of colonisation. You seem to have gone off arguing against an argument which was never made to begin with. The links between colonial ideology in late sixteenth-century Ireland and late twelfth-century Ireland are not in question as nobody is claiming that the British Empire began in 1169. In contrast, there is a large and widely accepted body of evidence (as outlined by Kenny above) that Ireland from the 1550s on was firmly part of the overseas expansion of the emerging British Empire, in particular as the practising ground for colonial policy in north America - and, as Canny noted, for many settlers from Britain, Ireland was part of the "new world". Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Noone disagrees it was a practising ground for colonial policy in North America. The article says exactly that. However, you are wrong in your misinterpretation of Kenny that Ireland was considered to be "overseas". [57] The word 'Empire' began to be used in relation to the Eng. crown in the 1530s, meaning simply a claim to absolute sovereignty especially vis-a-vis Rome. It had as yet no connotations of overseas expansion, and its application to Ireland, (note Ireland treated separately from overseas) whose Crown of course Henry VIII also claimed, remained inexplicit....Some contemporaries wrote of the British Empires in the plural: that of the British-Irish islands themselves, that of trade and commerce, and sometimes that of Britain's overseas colonies in the Americas). Ireland, then, was according to the English contemporaries' claims and language part of an English empire from at least the sixteenth century, and of a British one from the early seventeenth. In both cases it was so because it was asserted to be an integral part of a United Kingdom, not because it was an external territory conquered by that kingdom. Only in the later eighteenth century, after the newer usage of 'Empire' to describe the kingdom's overseas possessions took hold, did it become even possible to think about Ireland as part of that 'Empire'. ...it came to be viewed by policy-makers and analysts (and subsequent historians and critics), both British and Irish, as a part of that overseas territorial Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you doing this to Kevin Kenny's reputation, and our collective intelligence? The above quotes were not from Kevin Kenny but rather from Stephen Howe, who is a very different kettle of fish (and, unlike Canny, not a historian of sixteenth-century Ireland). This is not the way to behave. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, be WP:CIVIL, and spare me your lectures on how to "behave". I never claimed it was from Kenny, and I even linked to the bloody book where anyone can see it is not Kenny's. Instead of harping on about it and attacking other editors (who have input far more effort into this article than you), provide quotes from Kenny that support your interpretation of his words. It only reflects poorly on the editor when they resort to rubbishing sources that disagree with them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, it is possible to find references describing Ireland as England's first "overseas" colony (see Google books). Under the circumstances (reliable sources, not because of perceived "sensitivities") I was WP:BOLD and changed the wording [58] to remove reference to "overseas", referring instead specifically to the Americas. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The sensible solution, finally. Thank you. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not as cut and dried as you appear to think it is, and your definition of "sensible" jars with those of historians on the subject. Plenty of texts on the B.E. use "overseas" without meaning Ireland. Another one: Alan Taylor's American Colonies p23 - "Indeed, the conquest and colonization of Ireland served as the English school for overseas empire, the English equivalent of the Spanish invasion of the Canaries." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was giving you a nice way out there. Considering you have been shown to have misrepresented and misled people here several times in this short discussion, perhaps you should take that way out before citing other sources that may or may not actually exist (and which are far too time-consuming to be constantly checking). All the best. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You wrote above "somebody said a distinction is drawn in "reliable" (sic) sources between Ireland and "overseas" colonies. I have not seen any evidence of this". Well, now you have, haven't you? All the best. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here's another [59] Was the British Empire a maritime empire? Certainly the first English empire, centred on the British islands, depended in part on sea power to transport soldiers and supplies to and from France and Ireland. The wider, overseas empire that developed from the 'age of reconnaissance', first in the Americas and then in Asia, relied on a mastery of the seas and protection of trade routes. You might want to read more widely before falsely accusing other editors of dishonesty. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You know Red Hat, the graceful response to "The sensible solution" point would have been to acknowledge the thanks and move on --Snowded (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Had it been an actual rather than a sarcastic thanks, following on as it did from a series of accusations of dishonesty from this editor, I would have done exactly that. As Bush Sr. said of US-Iranian relations, good will begets good will. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh ... --Snowded (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes disagree with the way Redhat uses sources (when they are non-sequiturs - but this is not one of those cases - the quotes he's provided address the issue head-on). However, I would never accuse him of being dishonest or trying to mislead people. He spends (seemingly) far more time finding a wide range of sources and pointing us towards them than anyone else I've encountered here. I don't think the remarks were in any way deserved - it's funny how one side keeps lowering the tone. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

and this from the editor who talked about Trolls and rubber dinghies. Assertive and dismissive comments are likely to provoke a reaction, challenging an interpretation (or even saying that someone has misrepresented a position) does not imply an accusation if dishonesty. Saying that "one side" is lowering the tone is hardly helpful. --Snowded (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I hope you can see that you are engaging in exactly the sort of behaviour that you are telling people off for, and merely adding fuel to the fire of snipe and countersnipe. You made your original point to me - "move on" - now please move on yourself and let it go with no more sighs or provocative comebacks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Wiki-Ed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, this conversation would have concluded on Saturday afternoon had not one party to it chosen to interpret a genuine thank you as sarcastic and gone a bit ott in an attempt to right some perceived wrong to his/her pride. All of which was somewhat unnecessary. A bit less paranoia and self-absorption and much more empathy would have made the contributor in question aware that much work had been put into checking all footnotes and accordingly the person who said 'thank you' was quite relieved that the only sensible decision according to wikipedia verification rules was arrived at. Relief, not sarcasm. Now, please AGF. Move on. Thank you. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Snowded. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: None of the above sentiments of gratitude were sarcastic. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been away from here since my initial comments. Firstly, I would like an apology from Wiki-Ed for calling me a "troll". A glance at my editing history will confirm the absurdity of that insult - indeed the subsequent language and 'rationalisation' of the "not overseas" claim illustrate the very problem I seek to tackle here - the prevalence of British nationalist POV. Secondly, I think Dunlavin Green has nailed the notion that Ireland wasn't/isn't overseas. So let's delete that inaccuracy, OK? Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

``the prevalence of Briti nationalist POV`` thats rich comming from an editor who has proved to be an Irish nationalist POV and even more extreme in some cases. Such as here [60], in comparing the nazi`s to the British.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As you raise the issue, in terms of physical and cultural genocide I'd reckon that stating the British Empire was worse is merely stating the obvious. It only seems "extreme" because of the dominance of British nationalist pov in the mainstream media and Anglo-British history. Conditioned minds are easily shocked when confronted with unconditioned facts. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear you have no intention of making a useful contribution to this article and have simply come to this talk page to spread your hypocritical views. I am slightly surprised the linked discussion (that Rockybiggs found) did not lead to a warning; take this as the first. With only 3 short posts you've managed to breach 7 of the 14 principles listed on this page. If you have nothing constructive to add please go away. Here's some helpful guidelines to remind you what the purpose of this page is for. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah Wiki-Ed. I don't see the apology I asked for. You breached WP:AGF; WP:NPA; WP:CIVIL and several others in your earlier "contribution". Consider this a warning. Sarah777 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued provocative statements Wiki-Ed. Sarah's position on the British Empire and its consequences is not held by you, but it is a valid position and she is not alone in holding it. Is the genocide of Australia aboriginals as bad as the holocaust? The use of concentration camps in South Africa. I could list others all of which would be open for debate. Just to make it clear, I am not taking a position here, just pointing out that Sarah is more than entitled to put her views forward and that you should stop using provocative (and inaccurate) words such as "Troll" and "Hypocritical"; read WP:Civil and learn to live with editors who disagree with you. --Snowded (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed is merely pointing out that this talk page is for discussing the article, not for ranting about one's personal views. That said, can everyone now please put away their handbags and not post anything further to this thread? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure if you strike out provocative and inaccurate remarks such as "ranting about one's personal views" which are not justified. --Snowded (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat; such a sense of irony you have! "Wiki-Ed is merely pointing out that this talk page is for discussing the article, not for ranting about one's personal views." Yeah. When he stops for breath between rants about his personal views. Sarah777 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely justified. This isn't a discussion forum or a soapbox.

Also, Snowded, stop accusing me of using "provocative" language. Wictionary defines hypocrisy as The claim, pretense, or false representation of holding beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually possess. The editor is accusing others of being having "conditioned minds" (which is an insult in itself) and inferring that s/he possesses superior perspective. However, the comments posted above indicate that s/he either does not understand the meaning of certain phrases in certain countries or does understand what they mean and is using them deliberately to insult people. Which leads to the Wiktionary definition of a troll as: A person who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose. Which dictionary definition do you disagree with?

The page I/you linked to states that rudeness; insults and name-calling; taunting or baiting; quoting another editor out-of-context; making personal attacks; using derogatory language; and feigned incomprehension are not acceptable. The visitor has been engaged in this behaviour and, it would seem, has quite a history of incivility elsewhere. Contrast the diatribe with other editor's efforts to find sources. (And Redhat, sorry, I agree, but the handbag was already out when you posted.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So, Wiki-Ed. You are saying that holding a commonly held view on the British Empire on a talk page about the British Empire, when the issue of debate is the problem of British Nationalist POV in the article, is "rudeness; insults and name-calling; taunting or baiting; quoting another editor out-of-context; making personal attacks; using derogatory language; and feigned incomprehension"? You'd like to explain why, perhaps? Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then its a pity you are making it a soapbox, judging behaviour and motivation rather than content. --Snowded (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some sources use "overseas" to include Ireland, others do not. Some say Newfoundland was England's first "overseas" colony, others say Ireland was. This is easily verifiable if anyone that cares to do a Google book search. In order to avoid this ambiguity, and in order to prevent future edit wars or arguments, the wording in the article was changed to remove reference to "overseas". Now, I suggest we all leave it at that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive causing problem on Category:shades of red

If you have a look on Category:shades of red, you can see that one of the shades is Talk:British Empire/Archive 5. I've had a look in the history of the page, and it looks like someone added [[Category:Shades of Red]] in the section Pink or Red. The square brackets have since been removed, but the discussion is still categorised. I am reluctant to do any editing of an archived discussion without making my actions known; but to be honest, I can't see what is remaining on the page that is causing the page to still be categorised as a shade of red. Could someone check it out, please? Stephen! ^Coming... 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ok - I've sorted it now. Please be aware then that I have modified the archive discussion to remove the talk page as a shade of red. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian colonies and transportation

The reason I removed the cite is because (1) it referred to Australia as "the colony" - there was no one colony, there were six separate British colonies - and (2) it referred to transportation ending in Australia in 1840. Transportation to New South Wales - ie. one of the six colonies - ended in 1840; in the other colonies it ended at different times, the last colony to end transportation being Western Australia in 1868. Furthermore, the colony of South Australia had no transportation of convicts at any point.

Following on from this, it remains unclear whether the cite/reference is referring to population figures only in NSW or in Australia as a whole. Given that the reference is quite inaccurate on the first point, I am very much inclined to mistrust it on the second point. Slac speak up! 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish Free State

I reverted this edit by RedKing [61] but thought I should post here to request comment. My main problems with the edit were (1) that the text was altered without new references cited, leaving the original ones in place (this is wrong because the reference then does not make the same claims as the text it sits next to) (2) this is an overview article of over 400 years of globe-spanning history - do we need to know the technical intricacies of a constitutional state of affairs that only existed for 24 hours? (myself, I think not: that is what the Partition of Ireland article is for) (3) I seem to recall that this particular section was the result of some disagreement and then agreement before, so if it is to be changed, there should at least be a general consensus for that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic seems to attract a disproportionate amount of attention, usually from self-professed troublemakers. Simple is definitely best in this case. Let's keep it the way it was. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then you would be better off learning about the history rather than being a "self-professed troublemaker"? That edit is far more accurate than what has replaced it. "The 26 counties of the south" is wholly wrong, but extraordinarily convenient for a particular viewpoint: Donegal, for instance, is the most northerly county in Ireland but is in what people who hold that viewpoint term "the south". Northern (capital N) Ireland was never a province, Ulster (see article) was and is, so it is again inaccurate to speak of "the province of Northern Ireland" as if it had some historical legitimacy from some (non existent) existence prior to May 1921 (maybe that is the intention -ahem?). Most of all, all of Ireland was placed in the new state under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (as that article confirms), with unionists having the right to opt-out. So, in every respect the edit is historically more accurate than what has replaced it. 86.42.96.251 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the IP. The 26 county description is wrong - Historical Fact 1: Irish Free State began as the whole island of Ireland; 2 "province of Northern Ireland" is indeed inaccurate/unnecessary; and 3 "southern" etc is hardly appropriate (Donegal etc). My revised edit sticks to historical facts (and does not make the article longer) - please don't try to rewrite history. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the IP one point though, the relevant Act is not the Government of Ireland Act (that est'd NI and SI) - See Partition of Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this debate is going on elsewhere, but I agree with Snowded that if you are involved in a disagreement somewhere else about this you shouldn't be coming here and making the same changes. My response to you though would be: (1) "province": technically, yes it is the province of Ulster, but it is clear that many WP:RS refer to the "province of Northern Ireland" (just search in Google Books) (2) northern/southern ireland - take it up with the penners of the 1920 Act where they used precisely this terminology (read the act [62] or the purposes of this Act, Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, and Southern Ireland shall consist of so much of Ireland as is not comprised within the said parliamentary counties and boroughs. ) (3) there really is no need to go into technical detail about NI opting out immediately after 24 hours - the point as far as the British Empire is concerned is that Ireland was partitioned. This is an article that covers 400 years. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be more confusion here....the Irish Free State was not established under the Government of Ireland Act. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making a very technical point RedKing, yes the Free State formed and then the provinces separated, but it was all part and parcel of the same set of decisions. The way you have phrased it is misleading for anyone unaware of the history. I suggest that you allow the debate to continue on the Irish pages and when (or rather if) it is resolved there then is the time to make any changes here. Wiki-Ed, your comments are unhelpful and you should read WP:AGF. Redking has a valid point to make, I think he is wrong to bring it here, but calling him a trouble maker is a nonsense. --Snowded (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment was not aimed at Redking, but rather at a group of editors, some of whom describe themselves as trolls, who like to disrupt any Wikipedia article which mentions the history of a certain country. I have no reason to assume good faith when they have stated their intention is to disrupt. And the point is that the greater the amount of controversial content, the more likely it is for edit warring to occur. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re. "Redking has a valid point to make, I think he is wrong to bring it here..." Lets keep the issues clear - I want the article to stick to the facts - thie IFS started off with 32 counties....Lets not fudge the issue. I don't care whether one uses the word "province" or not as long as accuracy is respected. No debates here. Just facts. No one disagrees with me on the facts but some want the article to be inaccurate. Why? That is unfortunate in an encyclopedia. My edit did not make the article any lengthier either. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded that the way you phrased it completely gave the wrong impression of the reality of the situation. Also, I don't know why you keep harping on about the 1920 Act and the (non-)creation of the IFS. Read the article. It does not make that claim. It says that the IFS was created under the Anglo-Irish Treaty, while Northern Ireland had been created under the 1920 Act. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ps I removed "province of Northern Ireland" as technically this is incorrect

Re [63]. I don't think "the net result" is good English, but more importantly "six counties formed what is now known as Northern Ireland" is wrong. I have no idea when the term was invented or when it came into common usage, but we know at least that "Northern Ireland" was used in the 1920 act, and given that it has existed for nearly a century, it is odd to describe it as "now" being referred to as Northern Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

⬅"Net result" is modern English, but if there is a better way of putting it fine. The point is that there were some very complicated legal actions and we don;t want to mislead or have to provide long explanations in this article, that belongs elsewhere. Now known as was a way to avoid difficulties, but I am sure it can be improved. I see that your reversion was reversed! I suggest improving the next which combined your and my attempts to simplify it is the right way to go. The previous text was problematic. --Snowded (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Now known as" is verifiably wrong. It suggests that it was not known that way at the time, which is not the case (the term had already been defined in 1920) and a quick search of books published around the time show it was in use back then. e.g. this 1922 publication The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This reference [64] says "As signed, the Treaty applied to the whole of Ireland, but Northern Ireland was provided with an opportunity of opting out and retaining its existing status. This it did immediately." I have put this reference in the text and changed it accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with how the Article now reads...Thanks for the discussion guys. We made proguress. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

British Empire and the Second World War

Considering that for a considerable period of 1940 and 1941 Britain had no major and close allies it could be said that Britain might well of fallen to the Nazis if it werent for the valuable contributions made by the Empire nations and the Dominions, and if Britain had fallen in 1940 then who knows what would of happened... Not to mention the strategic godsend that having Egypt as a protectorate brought when the Italians and then the Germans invaded North Africa... Millions of troops from India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and many other countries would never of been their if it wasnt for British Imperialism. The ironic twist of course was that it was this war thay ended up destroying the Empire (in the long run) Just something for you all to chew over, it would be nice if some people would reply with what they think.Willski72 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. The Second World War section is not the greatest part of the article, but if you have specific suggestions then please say so. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the rough estimate is that 5 million Empire and Dominion state soldiers fought in the Second World War and that 170,000 of them died (or went missing). These arent exact figures but the deaths one is pretty close to the truth. I was thinking maybe someone could put this in to show the valuable sacrifices made by Empire nations that would not of been involved if it wasnt for the British Empire. Thats my suggestion. (statistics from 'Our War' by Christopher Somerville')Willski72 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed there should be a paragraph in the WW2 section detailing the contribution by the Empire during the conflict. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If i could help more i would, all i know is that ANZACs made up a considerable part of the Allied troops in North Africa and that Canadian and Australian troops had an especially important role in Normandy and on D-day. Not to mention of course the 'forgotten army' in Burma made up of soldiers from the Raj (mainly Burmese) that repeatedly held up the Japanese advance. Sorry i cant go into any more detail.Willski72 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pretty certain that the Australians were not very important in Operation Overlord at least they did not get their own beach.Jamhaw (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)jamhaw

You are correct, there were no Australian land forces involved in d-day. SEE Military history of Australia during World War II. ``While most Australian forces were withdrawn from the Mediterranean following the outbreak of war in the Pacific, large numbers of Australians continued to take part in the air offensive against Germany``--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, Australians in North Africa and Canadians in Normandy.Willski72 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

British Empire redefined

I came across this very interesting definition of the British Empire which differs radically from the understanding of the British Empire which this article currently presents. It’s from Ian Lustick of Cornell/Pennsylvania State University and he was discussing the campaign for Repeal of the Act of Union in the 1830s/40s: ‘Indeed, the most common epithet used to telegraph the utter unacceptability of movement toward political devolution in Ireland was “dismemberment of the empire.” To appreciate the meaning of this phrase to contemporaries as equivalent to the “undoing of the country,” we must keep in mind that before the 1860s the term “British Empire” referred clearly and unmistakably not to the “British Isles” and Britain’s worldwide network of colonies but to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland only. In India Great Britain had an empire (the British Empire in India), and other territories in Africa, Asia, and America might have had dominion or colonial status vis-a-vis the United Kingdom, but it was the United Kingdom only, or the “Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” which was referred to as the “British Empire.” Over and over again speakers referred to the “dismemberment of the empire,” meaning the separation of one part of the United Kingdom (Ireland) from the rest, to signal their categorization of the question of Repeal as one which no loyal subject could be prepared to contemplate.’ Ian S. Lustick, Unsettled states, disputed lands (Cornell, 1995), pp. 69-70. 86.42.68.179 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Available on Google Books here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.68.179 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And people of the Middle Ages did not refer to their era as "the Middle Ages", yet that is the term we now use to describe it. The point being, this is a historical article about the entity that was created by English/British overseas expansion, which is known as the "British Empire", as can be verified in any of the books listed in the references section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

I reverted an edit which replaced the headline map.

• First, the original map is referenced. The new map is not.
• Second, the new map showed the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Oregon Territory as part of the British Empire. None of the maps in the sources that can be found in the article references section show this.
• Third, there are fewer place names in the new map than the old.
• Fourth, the bright green is vomit inducing, and the uploader cannot spell "Ireland".
• Fifth, the original map was the one that was part of the article when it underwent the Featured Article review. If there is a case for changing it, it should be made here first.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This is a valuable historical topic, however it needs to reflect that he British Empire is over. News of that may not have reached some editors who still believe in colonialism. Wikipedia is the work of many editors and I draw the attention of TRH to wp:own and request that he does not remove referenced material on a whim. --Gibnews (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In case it escaped your attention, the first sentence of the article describing what the British Empire was is in the past tense, and there is a whole section at the end entitled "End of Empire". Given that there never was, and never will be, an official end date for the empire, just as there was no official start date, the article is about as explicit as it is possible to be while remaining within the constraints of verifiability that the empire is a thing of the past. But ultimately it is a matter of opinion whether the empire still exists.

I must also point out to other editors here who have not had the pleasure of collaborating with Gibnews, that he has very strong views about Gibraltar. One of his bugbears is anyone suggesting Gibraltar is a colony. This view, also held by Gibraltar's politicians, is not shared by the UN as Gibraltar is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, so it is a matter of your political viewpoint whether it is or not a colony. Now, I don't care two hoots either way, but I do care if he starts to use this article as a platform, which is one of his motives for coming here, as his edit comment shows. The other motive, I fear, can be found here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)